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...
Agreed on all of this. I am interested in how Ian Livingston, Lady Dorian etc come out of this because what has happened in Scotland would not have been possible without their complicity.
ReplyDeleteLivingston just walked out of the building, never to return. He's not working a notice period of handing over to anyone or anything like that. So, Police Scotland require a re-build too.
Personally speaking, I think it is too bad now, too rotten, to be saved and if Ruth Davidson was still around, I think there would be general agreement that she took over at Holyrood. .
Kate Forbes has been front and centre of financing the country, not the SNP, for three years. Fergusons etc has all happened under her watch. She's the most credible, recognizable, candidate, but still not good enough.
Interestingly, she still has confidence in the ballot going on now and I cannot understand that reaction. We know that they have 72,000 declared members, but 78,000 ballots have been sent-out. Where have the extra 6,000 ballots been sent to?
I have been reading Smithy too and I really hope that he/she is right on this. He has been right about almost all of it so far and what I find intriguing about it is that so many people have gone so quickly and that Sturgeon, who has a haunted look about her all of the time anyway, has a special haunted look about her now.
Lastly, John Swinney always speaks as though he is honest-John and he said recently that Sturgeon was 'at peace with herself' as if she was some biblical figure. Constant references like this haven't half annoyed me over the years. She is the antithesis of a biblical person.
A last word on Stuart Campbell - I reckon that I don't have much in common with him but I look in at his website every day and I do have admiration for the guy.
ReplyDeleteI remember when he was retired, about a year ago, Pete Wishart made a joke at his expense suggesting that the SNP could defeat anyone, even Stuart Campbell and his assembled army of supporters. It was something along those lines. Crass, fundamentally stupid, but it had all the hall marks of Pete Wishart over the years.
A few months later Stuart Campbell was back. It's a slimmed-down affair this time but he has gone for them this time and he has been instrumental in this whereas Pete Wishart has been strangely silent.
Campbell has done a sterling job in sticking it to Sturgeon and the cult
DeleteRishi Sunak should probably get some credit for this.
ReplyDeleteVoters will now desert the SNP, even if Forbes is elected leader and that looks increasingly likely.
It was nepotism leading-on to corruption that brought down the Labour Party in Scotland.
Scotland will never elect a Tory administration in a million years. Are we therefore prepared to swap SNP grifters for Labour Party grifters next time.
Should we not go for a re-set and simply close Holyrood down?
You know the Labour Party as well - do you really think that they are any better?
People might not like the SNP, but they hate Labour
DeleteMy generation really do hate Li@bour and now we hate the SNP.
DeleteIt took me a long time to come round to that idea, but I think you are both right.
DeleteWhen Holyrood was new and 'clean' so to speak, David McLetchie resigned after submitting a few bogus taxi receipts and Henry McLeish resigned due to sub-letting his office.
ReplyDeleteNow, no-one gives a fuck and corruption is everywhere. There are a few MSP's that I could name that I would trust, but they are all Tories.
Everything is covered-up and lied about and that is what they are all in a blind panic about just now. The cover is being lifted and the light shone-in. Even the saintly alphabet women must be afraid that they are going to be outed soon. No-one with any association with Nicola Sturgeon appears to be safe.
I'm a socialist and have been voting Tory for years. An alternative no longer exists.
DeleteThe Professor of Law that I keep talking about, is a CBE FRSE. So, he is in the higher echelons of Scottish private business and, because of that, he is trusted and so can and does communicate with parliamentarians.
ReplyDeleteHis legal firm has had this whistle-blowing case for almost 9-years now and they have done nothing about it.
As I said on Friday, this case is now with 'The Signals Network', who are US based. I thought that they were as old as Protect, but they are not, they are a relatively new organization but they are regarded as the worldwide experts nowadays.
I sent them only 5 or 6 paragraphs. A reference taking them to the Sunday Mail story, confirmation that many design opinions had been provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and I repeated the Protect opinion that there is 'a prima-facie case of significant risk to public safety at the School'.
We'll see what happens now. But as well as re-setting politics in Scotland, we all need to stop and re-set the legal profession as well because neither can do what they do without the complicity of the other.
Personally speaking, I would rather have a decent, honest legal profession than any number of parliamentarians; but we don't have that at the moment.
So, when John Swinney says: 'We're following legal advice' (and he says that all the time) - that should mean something and it should provide public reassurance, but it doesn't nowadays does it.
We have a putrid mixture going-on of politics and law; it was bad back in your time and it is getting worse.
I'll keep you updated.
I had a look at Wings over Scotland. His latest article is called: "Cleaning the Stables". That's not going to be easy. Having said that, Sturgeon, Swinney, Murrell and Livingstone are gone now and so they can all get started.
ReplyDeletethe lgbt and trans lobby wouldn't want change
DeleteI understand the acceptable duration for a whistle-blowing case is 4-weeks. I know from experience that in the Middle-East it is 4-weeks, but that is an international norm nowadays, accepted by everyone.
ReplyDeleteSo, that means they (the parliamentarians and the lawyers) have 4-weeks to get the investigation done so that the whistle-blower can return to work, without any reputational or financial losses. As you can imagine, that aspect of it is crucially important.
Because both the Professor of Law and Jackie Baillie have done nothing, I have carried-out the investigations myself with the best engineers in the world from the number-one engineering institution in the world. Their opinions are so strong and so consistent, no-one in Scotland can argue with them.
In the meantime, they sit on their hands year after year in virtual silence as if it all has nothing to do with them. It is therefore no wonder that I am beginning to lose my temper with this pair of dishonest buggers.
Accountability for this has been a bit of a moving target over the years, as you know. However, the Professor of Law has always been there, near enough at the centre of everything that should have been done but hasn't been done.
Not only is he a doppelganger of your Professor Rennie, but this case is a doppelganger of your case from your Glasgow University days, isn't it.
The chronology is as follows:
ReplyDelete1. August 2014: Went to see the Contractor and said, "This is not going to work, this school will sink into the ground if we're not careful". The Contractor sacked me.
2. September 2014: Went to see Professor of Law's law firm and said, "This school design is not going to work, get it checked by an expert please. The law firm asked the Contractor and the Contractor said "Relax, of course it's not going to sink". So the law firm did nothing.
3. April 2016: Went to see Jackie Baillie and said: "This school has started to sink, we need to get this fixed". Jackie reported this to Aberdeen City Council who said: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know about it and no-one agrees it is sinking".
The question at the moment is: "Why has this taken 9-years when it should have been sorted-out by engineering experts to an outcome, and you returned to work, within 4-weeks?"
That's a good question, isn't it.
Responsibility for it lies with entirely with Jackie Baillie. She may not agree with that, but the folk that are explaining this to me each have a lifetime's experience and they are certain.
This is undoubtedly one of world engineering's greatest whistle-blowing failures then and it has all been entirely needless. Not something that any of us can be proud of, is it?
“Ms Sturgeon recalled that when she saw Jacinda Ardern announce she was stepping down as New Zealand’s prime minister, she thought: “I wish that was me.”"
ReplyDeleteThat’s funny - so did we!
Just having a look at WoS there and saw the above. Sadly, it's not my own work; I wish it was.
They seem to be in an almighty rush to get the new leader announced this week. They were hoping for Humza, but he's suffered collateral damage already and the public see in him a loser. That's the way I see it anyway and so they will reluctantly accept Forbes....as long as it's not Regan.
Some are certain that criminal charges are going to be brought next week. I remember the days when Labour MP's went to jail for scamming expenses and so there will be calls for jail time to be imposed if this is indeed true.
It's who will be charged and what will they be charged with - that's the question, isn't it.
Humza is a loser, if he gets it, the makeover attempt to make him likeable will fail just like it did with Sturgeon
DeleteShe managed to get away with it for years
DeleteI find it impossible to read at the moment. On Loose Women, Sturgeon looked fine and unworried. That happened too at the Fabiani Inquiry too, so it doesn't mean that many, many folk at Scotgov are trying as best they can to cover everything up before she leaves.
DeleteSturgeon was seen on a flight to London yesterday and everyone assumed that she was going to meet her MP's for a final time. She wasn't - she was visiting the TV studios to film an episode of Loose Women. There's a slow motion realization, even at the BBC, that we've all been taken for mugs these past 8 years by a narcissistic nutter.
ReplyDeleteShe is now a well-liked celebrity in London after trashing Scotland and everything Scottish.
DeleteRishi Sunak had Sturgeon sussed-out months ago; even Liz Truss had Sturgeon sussed-out. If you're going to visit London during work time, make it for something important, like an interview with Andrew Neil, or Channel 4 news......something like that.
DeleteYou may recall the name Jonathan Moore? I have mentioned him a few times in the past. He is senior civil-servant at the Scottish Government.
ReplyDeleteI went to see him and Scotland's Head of Building Standards in August 2016 and I said to them both: "You need to do something about this school because it could collapse unexpectedly if you don't. A mistake has been made and it has been built-in; let me explain the mistake to you".
I have minutes of the meeting. Both did nothing, they appeared to treat it less than seriously and so it was a missed opportunity.
Jonathan Moore did the same at Edinburgh Sick Kids Hospital a few years later. The Union UNITE found-out about it and insisted that the hospital was fixed before they would allow their members to work there. In the end, that cost tens of millions to put right.
And he did it again on the Western Peripheral Route in Aberdeen (the Aberdeen City Bypass) and again, the cost was tens of millions of pounds to put right.
This school is at the point of being proven to be unsafe. Will it cost millions, or tens of millions to put right?
Jonathan Moore is now a Director at Scotgov and so it must be one of the few organizations in the world where you fail upwards.
The dam is beginning to burst, George. You can only keep things covered-up for so long and I was always going to beat the Scottish Government in the end.
ReplyDeleteI understand it is being brought to an outcome by Kevin Stewart MSP. All roads lead back to Holyrood and so I hope that my MSP is standing-up for her constituent just now.
Interestingly, it is the 'Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981' that is being cited as the precedent case. How many times have I referred all at Holyrood to that over the years?
This has been the mother of all cover-ups hasn't it? Although I have no political axe to grind here, I'm certain that this would not have occurred 20-odd years ago when we had a Scotland Office running things.
This was only ever about engineering but as soon as Holyrood gets hold of it, it becomes embedded in treacle. I'll bet you Fergusons at Port Glasgow has suffered from exactly the same sort of Holyrood politics.
I would appreciate a phone call from my MSP, Jackie Baillie, to let me know what the outcome is for me. I have spoken to her only twice and her secretary perhaps three or four times in all these years and so, I cannot be described as having been a burden on them.
ReplyDeleteIt has been explained to me by the two most senior whistle-blowing lawyers in the UK that my outcome can only be negotiated for me by my MSP and no-one else need be involved. They can be involved if Jackie wants them to be involved, but that is for her to decide.
9-years of unemployment, and all that comes along with that, results in attrition week after week, month after month and year after year. So, it's time for an outcome to be agreed and for me to hand-over to others that will take-over from here.
Jackie may want this to be handled by an Advocate lawyer and that would be acceptable. The only point that I am making is that Jackie has to lead it, as no-one else can do that. So, all arrangements should be made by Jackie.
Hence, I am now waiting only on Jackie Baillie.
I'll call Jackie Baillie's office in the morning.
ReplyDeleteI'll set this out the way I understand it at the moment: I have explained in the past that the Emeritus Professor of Law is in charge of the Contract, Civil Servant H represented the client Aberdeen City Council/Hub, engineer H was the engineer with design liability for the project and it was the Contractor that made the initial mistake that has caused all of these problems.
ReplyDeleteThis can only be solved to an outcome by a Scottish Government Minister and Kevin Stewart MSP is now doing that with all of the five parties named above. It is clear that the as-built design problem that I have explained many, many times exists and that Protect's opinion that a 'prima-facie case of significant risk to the public' exits, too. At last, there is a realization that this is extremely urgent.
Frankly, resolving this to an outcome from here is nothing to do with me. All of my information was handed-over years ago, it is all genuine and correct and nothing has changed.
What I am asking Jackie Baillie to do is to engage, also with Kevin Stewart, to obtain an outcome for me. That outcome will comprise a financial settlement for myself and those who have assisted me and a return to work. Kevin Stewart will do nothing until he is put under pressure to act and so it is for Jackie Baillie to do that.
There is an Advocate lawyer in Glasgow who knows a great deal about this case and I presume he would be willing to help Jackie but she has to engage with him first, which means speaking to him by telephone. I cannot do this and only she can do it and so I will leave that with her.
Whistle-blowing cases are concluded inside 4-weeks in almost every country in the world and what is set-out above is the way it is done. At last they have started to listen. So, I repeat, this is the responsibility of parliamentarians. Kevin Stewart has his duties to fulfil and Jackie Baillie has her duties to fulfil. Jackie's duties are relatively easy and I would expect her to be engaging with Kevin Stewart and the Advocate lawyer now so that I can be released, with a satisfactory outcome, by the end of the week.
When this started, I was 54 years old and I am now 63. Frankly, it has been a criminally negligent performance by all and if I hadn't persisted over these years, the school would inevitably have collapsed. What more can I say?
Let me add to the final paragraph above. Received yesterday: "xxxxxxxx School, Aberdeen - foundations at risk of collapse and government inaction". This was not written by an engineer, it was written by a prominent whistle-blowing lawyer and it reinforces the point that it is the Scottish Government that everyone is waiting on just now.
ReplyDeleteGeorge -
ReplyDeleteI decided to send a formal letter by email to Jackie Baillie last night. Because of the nature of these things it would be best if I didn't reproduce any of it here. Having said that, what I said in the letter has been reproduced here many times in the past.
The letter was copied to two senior lawyers who both represent me in this case.
I said that I was aware of the current investigations which were taking place into the safety of the school and whether it could be fixed, or not. Those investigations are being led by Kevin Stewart MSP.
I said that Jackie alone was responsible for achieving an outcome for me from Kevin Stewart. If she doesn't instruct Kevin Stewart to do that, then he will not do it and so her input is essential just now and I asked her to deal with that today.
The reason the lawyers cannot deal with it is because I was time-barred many years ago, possibly 8-years ago now and so there is really nothing they can do.
However, this is whistle-blowing and it has been explained to me that it is the responsibility of Scottish Government Ministers. They deal with the safety aspect of the school and my constituency MSP deals with all matters relating to a satisfactory outcome for me.
"The Signals Network" are closely aligned with the American Society of Civil Engineers. It is possible that this story may end-up in one of their journals. They may end-up saying that the building is fine, but they probably won't say that.
I am expecting an outcome on Friday. That can be delivered to me either by Jackie, or by someone else instructed by Jackie.
I've mentioned this half a dozen times on these pages already, but we may be in the middle of Alastair Campbell's 4th stage in his: "The four stages of Dealing with a Whistle-blower".
ReplyDeleteThe fourth stage was: "Apologize and say it was all a misunderstanding".
So far, we have taken engineering advice from the American Society of Civil Engineers as they are recognized as the top-ranking experienced professionals. Perhaps on political strategy, all at Holyrood should be taking advice from Alastair Campbell?
That sounds like a plan, doesn't it.
I suspect that I might be offered jobs now, George. In fact, it has started already.
ReplyDeleteI want paid for my losses first and I made that very clear last night in my letter to Jackie Baillie.
The important thing is that we are definitely making progress.
I notice the chap hasn't posted up on WoS for a number of days now. I looked at what he posted last and it gave the impression that Humza was beaten already. Almost all the expected votes had been returned and he had no chance of winning. Even Stuart Campbell says that in a fair fight, he has no chance of winning. Presumably both know far more than we do and presumable all three candidates already know the outcome.
ReplyDeleteAll that is clear to me is that the party is now fractured down the middle. The crowds that gathered at the Hydro arena could almost be split into 50% Nationalists and 50% Not Really Nationalists. That's the way I see it just now. I cannot see any short term reconciliation of the various groups and it looks to me like eternal conflict such as we had in Jeremy Corbyn's day in the Labour Party.
We'll see what the next couple of days brings. There is a glimmer of hope and it will either materialize into something, or it won't.
ReplyDeleteAt the time the Edinburgh Sick Kids Hospital was fixed, there was strong Union in place and they fought the Scottish Government and beat them. At the Aberdeen City Bypass, it was a strong Contractor that beat them. At this school it has been a member of the public and that's been the difference. What I have found is that you are up against a Scottish Government gang who each cover the other's back.
ReplyDeleteThey are all in a state of panic just now, blaming each other and all the rest of it, but yesterday I referred Jackie to an Email dated 13th September 2014, that told them if they went ahead to build the school, it would collapse. Three or four paragraphs and it was all explained there. All that has gone-on since 2014 in the Press and so-on has just been a repetition of what was said then. No-one listened and now it's too late.
All of the parties that are involved have this information; the following are the two crucial pieces of evidence. Just look them up and this case can be closed:
ReplyDelete1) My email to Aberdeen City Council/Hub's partnering lawyer, dated 13th September 2014.
2) Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion (14) issued on 17th November 2017.
Item 2 confirms that item 1 was correct and should have been taken seriously at the time.
It doesn't look like the other side have an alternative explanation and so, to avoid complexity, this information is all that anyone will need.
If they are finding that there is a reticence among employers to employ whistle-blowers, and that is what I have found, then I have offered to work overseas and that would be a good solution for everyone.
ReplyDeleteWhen Shirley McKie was finally cleared, she thought that she would just walk back into her old job, but she couldn't; she asked to return and her request was refused and and she now works in a friend's shop in Irvine.
Worldwide, there has always been a healthy demand for engineers with my experience and so finding me a job, 'anywhere in the world', would be far easier.
Finally, I have asked to be paid for my losses and I require two others to be paid for their time and help before I leave. I am not asking for apologies and I am not looking for any further Press involvement.
It can all be over at that.
Congratulations to Youless, no matter what, he's got to be better than Nicoliar. Or perhaps not. We'll find out soon enough.
ReplyDeleteIf you take a look at ASCE Ethics Case Study 2 - from 14.40min -14.50min, that explains in 10-seconds the responsibility of an engineer to do the right thing. Not all of us will do that of course, but those that do should be supported. That makes sense, doesn't it?
ReplyDelete"Why is this investigation being left to a member of the public, who is being advised by the American Society of Civil Engineers? Who is responsible for investigating this here? Who is right and who is wrong?"
ReplyDeleteMy solution would be to ask Scotland's Head of Building Standards. As the title suggests, he is the 'leader' of building standards in Scotland. He was given all of the design data and a one-to-one explanation of the problem in 2019. Ask him.
Basically, he is waiting for the building to either 'deform' or 'collapse' and if it doesn't deform or collapse then he has won, but that's not the way engineering works. As I say, just ask him!
"I contacted the two journalists earlier today and sent them the undernoted letter. Neither had received it before and so we can leave it to them now and they can take it from here. It will be their decision.
ReplyDeleteThe letter is a statement of the position that has been set-out many times before, but it was important for me that someone in authority reached the same conclusion that I and the others had reached.
Thank-you again for your organization's assistance over the years. It has been most helpful to me and without it, this case would have been covered-up and I am certain of that."
I haven't copied the letter as I want to maintain some confidentiality. But, we should be asking ourselves why someone, who is not an engineer, can read through all of this once and reach the conclusion that a problem exists.
The problem is in Scotland, isn't it? With our government.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI had access to my emails restored on Wednesday.
Earlier today I contacted the two journalists who have been following this story for the past number of years. XXXXX knows one of the journalists, although I suspect that you may know both of them.
The evidence that I have gathered over the past number of years is contained in "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion (14)" by expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, which I attach. You have seen this many times of course. The Scottish Government's evidence is contained in 5No visual inspection reports by structural engineers.
It has previously been suggested that there is a prima-facie case of significant risk to the safety of the public at the school which must be investigated properly - and quickly? That statement was made, five months ago, following a review of my evidence versus the Scottish Government's evidence. Since then, nothing appears to have happened and that is most disappointing.
Whether the Scottish Government, Hub or Aberdeen City Council agree with that assessment or not really doesn't matter, as the only party with authority to make that judgement, to accept or reject it, are ZZZZZZ and it is crucially important that you appreciate that and give them the opportunity to answer directly.
Just to be clear - ZZZZZZ have design liability for the foundations. They are employed under contract and that means they answer all questions put to them by the client. The client can be either Aberdeen City Council, Hub or the Scottish Government. That is a fundamental condition of contract and they will of course respect it.
Can I suggest therefore that you go back to ZZZZZZ and ask them the question: "Will the contractor's change to the design, as explained in Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion (14), adversely affect the compliance of the design? Many expert engineers say that it will adversely affect it, but what do you advise?"
We are regrettably in a situation whereby the case set-out by myself and supported by members of the ASCE can only be answered by the submission of a full as-built design check by ZZZZZZ. I seem to have been asking for this since 2016 and so can you ask for it yourself, or perhaps the journalists can ask for it and when that is done, this case can be finalized - closed to an outcome.
Finally, can you advise me what you intend doing quickly, please? The last time you responded to me was in early December.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDelete1. All that I require at this stage is payment for my losses and a return to employment. I have asked for you assistance many times already but can you start progressing this with your colleagues at Holyrood, please?
2. In terms of the safety of the school: It seems inevitable that ZZZZZZ will agree with the experts of the ASCE and so a 'limit state failure' already exists. That is all the information that anyone requires. What ought to be done now is explained in EC7.
3. XXXXXX's point, which has been repeated to me several times now, is that lawyers cannot progress this from here and it is entirely the Scottish Government's responsibility. I think we can both agree on that?
4. Let me know how you are progressing with this as lack of communication just leads to needless prolongation which doesn't suit anybody.
George - Thank-you again for allowing me to make use of your site like this. If this hadn't been allowed, then this would have been lost in the Holyrood long-grass. Jackie Baillie would have continued to ignore it, Scottish layers and civil-servants, ditto. That's the way Scotland works these days.
ReplyDeleteSadly, there are losers and they have been myself, those who use and depend on this school every day and the Scottish tax-payer.
We now have the final word from the UK's most senior whistle-blowing lawyer and it didn't take her long, did it? Two or three weeks. She has reviewed the evidence too and there is nothing that she can do for me as the case has time lapsed. It can only be solved by MSP's.
It does look to me as though the school has been 'recklessly certified' for all of those years. I am not a lawyer of course, but that is an allegation was always at the top end of 'terrifying' when it came to things that worried engineers.
There are two analogous cases that all at Holyrood and the EIS can use from here. I have explained them both previously, but I will do so again:
1. The safety of the school is analogous to Edinburgh Sick Kids Hospital which was fixed, before it opened, two or three years ago. Coincidentally, it was Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government that caused that situation too. That chap really needs to start listening to the experts before he ends up killing people. That case was resolved by the Union, UNISON and it seems to me that this case can only be solved from here by the Union, the EIS. But, that decision is for them.
2. As you can see from yesterday's email to Jackie Baillie, I have asked her to pursue recovery of my losses over the years and a new job for me from her colleagues at the Scottish Government. The analogy here is the Shirley McKie case and if Jackie Baillie pursues this for me in the way that Mike Russell pursued that case for Shirley McKie, it will be resolved very quickly.
So, we are finally at the end; the terminus. I can only speak for myself and I am waiting on Jackie Baillie.
You have received a great injustice, and that cannot be overlooked, and society should work properly for everyone in it.
DeleteI remember writing about the Shirley McKie case, and speaking out about that injustice, as well as her comp, she should have been offered reinstatement, if she wished. Sadly, government prefer to bury issues, and that is a mistake.
DeleteGeorge - I am not forgetting of course that you are due payment for allowing your websites to be used in this way for the past 4 or 5 years. I cannot foresee there being much, if any, resistance to that as lawyers have been paid and have managed to achieve nothing in that time. They have achieved a fabulous result for a delinquent contractor, but presumably that was accidental?
ReplyDeleteSo, this case has followed almost the same trajectory that your case did back in the day. The difference is that my Emeritus Professor of Law is aware that this school has been certified as safe when it wasn't safe and that, in my experience, makes this an investigation that should perhaps be being led by the police? Certainly, there will be many people that will be feeling aggrieved just now. The first question the police will ask is: "When did you first know about this and what did you do to investigate?" The answer up until now has been: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you". I don't think that answer will be acceptable somehow?
We can leave that for the EIS to consider.
I may have said before, but I have worked alongside governments in Africa and the Middle-East and I know the way that governments work and lawyers and the police work, in these countries. Unless there is complete separation of these functions, malfeasance takes hold and the PUBLIC suffer the consequences of that. Sadly, those that are involved here seem to have no concept that this is what is now happening in Scotland.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteCan you send this to ----------- in the morning please? Urgent letters like this should be sent 'engineer to engineer' and they have to be very clear and so please send this on my behalf.
It is for you to alter it as you like and to send it to whoever you decide of course, but I have elected to send it to all interested parties today.
As you can see, I have copied it to the same distribution used by -------------- in her letter to me of 6/12/22. I have also included two members of the Press who have been following this case for several years now.
Once the letter is answered, everyone will understand what the problem is and that allows a solution to be found. That makes more sense than all of us sitting on our hands and waiting for a structural deformation or collapse to occur.
Following on from ------------- advice last week, this is a matter that can only be resolved from here by MSP's. She is Protect's legal expert and we perhaps do not require any further legal opinion?
So, the letter needs to come from you, Jackie. All that I am doing just now is providing adequate warning to everyone.
"Dear ------------,
ReplyDeleteI am writing to you again regarding the stability of ------------- School in Aberdeen, which was designed by your firm, built by ------------------- and handed-over to the client, Aberdeen City Council/Hub, in late 2015. Your previous letter to me and -----------'s letter to my constituent, --------------, and copied to many others, confirmed the position that ---------------- have already checked the original design and you are satisfied that it is stable.
Your letters give the impression that there may be something wrong with the 'as-built' design but, if there is, then it is -------------'s fault or the client's fault and I presume that to be a fair synopsis of your position. If so, then it follows that whoever has been certifying this building as safe to use since 2015 may have done so 'recklessly' and I say that because he/she may not be in possession of all of the information necessary for an objective decision to be made and the purpose of this letter is to ask you to provide that information, with recommendations, so that a proper assessment of the safety of the building can take place without further delay.
I have been dealing with this case for many years and I am clear that ----------'s concern is that an unauthorised design change by the contractor, specifically the installation of a 5m deep, clay filled trench along the entire west perimeter of the site has led to a 1-metre wide discontinuity, effectively a blockage, in the subsurface confined artesian layers that traverse the land and that has led to inundation by groundwater, soil collapse and subsidence. It follows that this is also occurring in the land underneath the school and that is what makes this so concerning. He has been repeating this since September 2014 and so I am in no doubt about what his honest concerns are, but I note that neither yourself, nor -------------, have elected to address them in your letters and that is disappointing.
------------- has asserted that these effects amount to a 'geotechnical limit state failure', specifically a hydraulic failure, and that is the precursor of a 'structural limit state failure', which is essentially the deformation or collapse of the building. I have seen photographs which show that the land surrounding the school is flooding, it is also sinking and that will, in time, cause a structural deformation or collapse to occur. You know best of course but that would be my expectation and it would perhaps be the expectation of most of us. No-one can predict when this will take place as failures 'from the bottom' do tend to occur suddenly and without warning.
------------ was alarmed at what he was witnessing and by the fact that he was not being taken seriously by the Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council or Hub and so he consulted with expert geotechnical engineers at the American Society of Civil Engineers in late 2017. I attach a copy of: "Aberdeen Schools Project Comments and Discussion (14)" in which they express their concerns with respect to the stability of this building and the land surrounding it. The point I am making here is that it is not ------------- alone that has these concerns, it is Mr Dick plus more than 40No world experts and that is a situation that ------------ have failed to explain and you have had many opportunities to do so.
ReplyDeleteI am primarily representing the interests of my constituent in this matter, but his interests coincide with the wider public interest in Scotland and so permit me to ask you again: Please review the attached "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion" and the "Soil Investigation Report" and confirm if the contractor's unauthorized design change will reduce the stability of the land and reduce the stability and therefore the viability of the building?
Finally, my constituent has, consistently from 13th September 2014, presented himself as a whistleblower and so he ought to be treated with respect and receive protection from all of the parties that are copied in to this Email. I am aware that he has been unemployed for most of the past 9-years as a direct result of this case and I am deeply concerned by that outcome. I would therefore ask that you to take the time to understand and respect the position he has taken and fully answer the question, in the paragraph above, that I present on his behalf.
Once you have done that, I am assured that we will reach an outcome on the safety of this building very, very quickly"
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI have sent you four Emails since 17th January. That's hardly excessive and when this school suffers a structural failure you will be receiving many more Emails than that.
Can you concentrate only on the expert advice, from Protect and from the ASCE, that you have been given? Every time I ask you to do something, you do something else and, as a result, we end-up going backward instead of forward. As I explained yesterday, this needs to be 'engineer to engineer' and it is as simple as that.
-----'s cease and desist letter applies only to myself and Bob Matheson of Protect told you that on 7th December. That is why I asked you to send the letter; essentially because ------- cannot ignore you and I spent a great deal of time explaining that to your office staff in recent weeks. There is nothing which prevents you from sending the letter and so please proceed and send it.
"“------- does not have any concerns regarding the design itself, and we are not aware of any allegations regarding the same”, is not even an admission of a design-change, let alone a design change that they checked/approved." - Protect 14th December 2022. This sentence in Ms -------'s letter ought to be challenged. You are evidently not going to do it and so can someone else do it? Stephen Garvin? Answer this and you have solved this case.
The ASCE precedent case studies would suggest to me that both yourself and -------- would be at the forefront of any investigation into a structural failure at the school and I refer you both to ASCE Ethics Case Studies 2 and 4 which explain why that would be the expected outcome. So, my advice to both of you would be to start taking this seriously.
During discussions with ---------- who is Legal Director of Protect, she advised me that it is your responsibility to achieve a satisfactory outcome for me from the Scottish Government. Frankly, the safety of the school is now the responsibility of all of the rest of you. The problem has been clearly explained and it is now time for you to start doing the job you are being paid to do.
My situation has been brought about by the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore (see attached letters) and I have explained that to you many times. You have told me that you are being delayed by lawyers, but that is clearly not the case. It appears to me that it is yourself that is delaying everything. So, get back to me tomorrow please and leave the rectification of the school to the others.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDelete1. The precedent case, as far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned, is the Shirley McKie case which was concluded to an outcome by Mike Russell, with assistance from American experts. You may remember that case? You are in exactly the same position that Mike Russell was in and I have asked you to conclude this case in the same way. It has obviously been done before and it would therefore appear to me to be straightforward.
2. This is not an employment law case, Protect wouldn't be involved if it were and they have been involved for the past 5-years. it is a whistleblowing case and it is of significant public interest. Protect's Legal Director said straight away to me that it is your responsibility as I am time-barred as far the legal profession are concerned. As I explained an hour ago, Jonathan Moore is an employee of the Scottish Government and his conduct is your responsibility.
3. Shooting from the hip, the way you are doing, does not help anyone and that is why this case remains unresolved. The detail contained within this chain of Emails is all that anyone needs in order to solve this case and we can perhaps leave that to Stephen Garvin, -------- and Fraser Innes? All that I have asked you to do is achieve an outcome for me and that amounts to a financial settlement for my loss of earnings and a job as my reputation has been so severely damaged by this case.
Please respond to me tomorrow with a solution that works.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteAs explained below, the situation that I have been left in is entirely the Scottish Government's responsibility and so please proceed to communicate with those that are involved and advise me of their proposals later today.
We appear to be in agreement that the safety of the school can now be left to be explained and resolved to an outcome by the others on this distribution list?
Can I suggest that we refrain from any more Email communication until this is resolved to an outcome?
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeletePermit me to make one final point:
Mike Russell was a senior opposition MSP at Holyrood when he represented his constituent, Shirley McKie, against the administration of the then First Minister Jack McConnell. Mike Russell didn't say: "Not me - I'm not responsible for the conduct of civil servants". He got-on with it and that is what Holyrood is supposed to be for.
Mike Russell had the opinions of two American experts and that was enough. You (all) have the opinions of more than forty American experts and many of you have had them for several years and so why are you finding this so complex? Not a single expert found it to be complex.
Contact me later today when my outcome is finalized, please.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteThere are two issues here and they can both be dealt with separately. The safety of the school can be dealt with as you wish. There are precedents for this and the safety of the 17No Edinburgh schools, which were the subject of the 2017 Cole Inquiry, were decided upon by Edinburgh City Council during the five days of the Easter school holiday and Professor Cole praised the Council for that response. "Managing expectations" doesn't come into it and, if there is a willingness to do so, the safety of ------ School can be decided upon very quickly.
Agreeing an outcome for myself is straightforward and is a matter between the Scottish Government and (my suggestion only) their partnering firms -------- and --------. That can be done by close of business today and is carried-out by telephone and Email. When Piper Alpha caught fire, those on the platform didn't write letters ashore asking for direction on what to do next, did they? They didn't wait 20 working-days for a response? So, my expectation is that this will be finalized to an outcome today.
"but allegations of rigged contest persist" - how many members of the SNP do you think would have voted for Humza, the continuity candidate, if today's events had taken place a month ago?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it's been a good day for the bloggers and Stuart Campbell has shown all of the press how to do investigative journalism.
My local supermarket is a Co-op and the newspapers are kept next to the check-outs and I notice that no-one buys them any more. At the end of the day, many of them are still on the shelves, unsold. Now we know why.
The press have been muzzled, but sometimes things are so big, they cannot be hidden.
DeleteWhat with an ex-president getting arrested, now the raid on Nicoliar's home. Have Scotland and America become "banana republics"?
DeleteI see Wings were given a mention in today's Daily Telegraph.
DeleteWings has done sterling work, as investigative reporting goes, he rates an award.
Deletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9297015/ANDREW-NEIL-Nicola-Sturgeons-storm-troops-turned-Scotland-banana-republic.html
ReplyDeleteThis was the article re Scotland turning into Banana Republic. What it complained about was that the law, IN SCOTLAND, is being used to put fear into the public instead of to protect the public.
The law in Scotland has become putrid and the higher up you go the worse it gets.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeletePermit me to add two items so that you have all the information required on one trailing Email:
1. Inquiry_into_Edinburgh_Schools_February_2017.pdf. Page 62, and the preceding few pages, explain the chronology leading up to the decision to close 17No Edinburgh schools on 8th April 2016. That decision was taken, by Edinburgh City Council, within five-days and there was never any question of sending letters to the Scottish Government and waiting week after week for a response. This is 6th April 2023 and you are in exactly the same position again, although there is only one school to decide upon this time.
2. I attach trailing the minutes of the meeting that the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore refers to in the letters that I copied to you on Monday. It appears that I have been correct all along and if he had investigated this information properly at the time, Professional Indemnity Insurance would most likely have paid to fix the school. That will not be possible now and so the costs which have been incurred since that meeting date, and which are no doubt set to increase considerably, are needless.
I am still waiting patiently for an outcome and it's been a long wait, hasn't it. I am not waiting on letters from ministers, or lawyers, or Protect or anything or anyone else, I am only waiting on my MSP getting back to me and so please do so.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI will leave the others off the distribution from now-on. They now have enough information to come to a decision on the safety of this school. That decision, and the timeline for making it, is for them and they simply do not require any more input from me.
Most of your constituents in Dumbarton would struggle to sustain themselves and their families beyond a few months of unemployment. I have endured more than 4-years of continuous unemployment and, previous to that, 5-years of itinerant working all over the world and I wish to put an end to that now. This case is now finished and I presume that you agree with that?
As I said earlier, the responsibility for doing that rests with you. Others have offered to help but you should be prepared to pick-up the phone and speak to them, as they will not pick-up the phone and speak to you. So, I am asking you to resolve this for me and to do that you will need to engage with others.
I have gone over what I am expecting and there is no need for me to do that again. One thing I would add is that I have spoken with one of the leading recruitment consultants, --- in Edinburgh and the chap knows me, but he is unable to find me a job because I have been a whistle-blower.
This needs to be sorted-out and it cannot go-on any longer. I made a suggestion to --- and he understands it, but he will need assistance from the Scottish Government to make it work. Can you ensure that is provided straight away, please. Sadly, when a case lasts this length of time, there are no easy solutions.
I will not be taking any job until I get paid and the small number of people that have assisted me are also paid.
I'll leave it at that George, until I hear from Jackie.
ReplyDeleteThe way it stands is that she is responsible for bringing this to a satisfactory conclusion for me in the same way Mike Russell was responsible for bringing the Shirley McKie case to a satisfactory conclusion for her. As I have said many times, the two cases are analogous.
You will be first to know the outcome.
Jackie's not an engineer and Mike Russell wasn't a finger-print expert, but he asked those that were and he followed the evidence. If Jackie just does the same, we can be finished and I can be out of here within days.
I will say no more, but there appear to be enough honest officials left in Scotland to make sure that this wasn't covered-up any longer and I am thankful to them and for the use of this website over the years.
I think the Murrell issue will effect everyone's radar for some considerable time.
DeleteGeorge - I have been unable to send you photographs and PDF's over the years. Can I provide one piece of evidence which is conclusive? Trailing are the minutes of "Meeting 1" which was attended by myself, an Advocate lawyer, and Jonathan Moore and Bill Dodds of the Scottish Government.
ReplyDeleteThis is not new information of course, but is it worth presenting it again at this point?
These minutes were recorded by myself and were distributed the following day to all attendees. I received no comments and so they were accepted as an accurate record of what was said.
"Meeting 2" was held on 23rd May 2019 with Stephen Garvin and Scott Johnson of the Scottish Government. At that meeting, we discussed the validation of my opinions by expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers. For simplicity, I have not attached these minutes but they are in the same vein as those trailing.
You are not an engineer, but this is not unduly complex, is it? The only question that I have been asked over the years is: "What do you mean by scour?" So, it is not as if we are discussing the complexities of finger-print identification or anything like that.
The point I am making here is that the Shirley McKie case was solved because it was alleged, by Mike Russell MSP, that 4No employees of the Scottish Fingerprints Service had been NEGLIGENT in ignoring the advice of American experts. What I have been asking Jackie Baillie MSP to do is realize that the two cases are analogous and that 4No employees of the Scottish Government have been negligent in ignoring my advice and that of American experts.
The longer that Jackie Baillie takes, the wider the net will spread, that's obvious, isn't it? Does this really take 6-years? I say that because the McKie case took Mike Russell less than a year. He worked and led the investigation and he considered that he was doing his job.
At the conclusion of the McKie case, Mike Russell led calls for the 4No employees of the Scottish Fingerprints Service to be dismissed. Should Jackie Baillie be looking for the same outcome for the 4No employees of the Scottish Government here? I will leave that to her; that will be her decision.
"MEETING 1. 17th August 2016
ReplyDeleteIn Attendance: ------, ------, Jonathan Moore (Scottish Government), Bill Dodds (Scottish Government)
1) BD stated that the foundations were designed on a presumed available bearing capacity of 150kN/m2. SD stated that the Soil Investigation Report recommends: 'The presence of shallow and potentially upwelling groundwater on the site reduces the available bearing capacity to <75kN/m2.
2) SD stated that the Soil Investigation Report contains a number of recommendations regarding control of water table levels. SD referred to an Email from Fairhurst which stated that standard foundations would not be suitable, and another which stated that if a permanent land drainage system could not be installed then a piled foundation would be necessary.
3) SD referred to 2No photographs which tend to show the water-table level at or near ground level at different areas of the site.
4) BD stated that the water ponding along the southern pedestrian footpath was not due to up-welling water. SD accepted that but stated that it did represent water table level along that section of the school.
5) A photograph was displayed showing the water-table level at or near ground level at the west end of the site.
6) JM stated that the previous flooding was due to blocked field drains which had since been repaired.
7) BD stated that the design was in accordance with BSI Design Standards. SD referred to Table 1 of BS 8004 and stated that the design was not in compliance. He referred also to the statement within BS 8004 that a rising water table results in a minimum 50% reduction in available bearing capacity. On this basis, ------'s design factor of safety is reduced, or perhaps removed completely.
8) SD stated that both ------ and ------ advised ------ to protect the natural drainage routes and had warned against carrying-out deep excavations below the water table. BD stated that the water table was at 1-2m; SD stated that the contamination excavations were at 5m along the full west elevation of the site.
9) SD stated that the photographs of flooding tended to show water which had a silt content indicating that the flooding had been caused by ground-water and not surface water. JM stated that the colour could be explained by silt washing off the topsoil.
10) The photographs shown at the meeting were taken in November 2015 and March 2016. SD stated that it was not raining on the days the photographs were taken and that there had been no flooding in Aberdeen on these days.
11) JM stated that it was relatively common on new buildings to find surface water drainage problems.
12) The Soil Investigation Report is the property of Aberdeen City Council and is the stage 1 interpretative report with recommendations. The foundations were designed to the ------ Soil Investigation Report of 2013. This report contains no recommendations.
ReplyDelete13) SD stated that some of the ground-water was travelling under the site from west to east under hydrostatic pressure. This can cause scour and soil collapse to occur. Maximum effect is when the hydrostatic pressure is equal to or greater than the weight of overburden.
14) A BuroHappold drawing was examined showing a 60mm drop in level between the low point of the kerb and the south corner. The photograph from March 2016 was examined and SD stated that the drop in level now looked to be in excess of 300mm. SD stated that approximately 25m3 of soil had been lost due to either soil collapse or scour last winter.
15) JM explained the explained the operation of the SER certification scheme for structural design and stated that all the certificates had been issued by ------ and Warrants then duly issued by Aberdeen City Council. SD accepted the explanation and stated that the design was failing due to a design change instructed on site by ------ and not advised to either ------ or Aberdeen City Council's building control department.
16) SD was asked why he thought piling rather than pad foundations was the best design option. SD referred to the SI report which recommends 'abnormal founding options'.
17) GMcA suggested Professor Albert Rodger from Aberdeen University would be able to provide an independent and expert opinion. SD stated that he was one of the foremost geotechnical engineers in the country and his specialism was geotechnical dynamics, which was the specific problem at Brimmond. JM stated that ------ of Aberdeen had already provided an independent opinion and found no sign of subsidence either within the school buildings or within the playgrounds.
18) There is no sign of flooding at the moment. G.McA asked if it was likely to rise again in the winter and asked if everyone at the meeting was prepared to wait for that.
19) G.McA stated that the CDM Regulations apportion specific responsibilities to client, designers and contractor.
20) SD asked who has design liability now.
21) BD stated that all contaminated soil had been tested prior to removal. SD stated that the ------ report of July 2014 complained that too much soil had been removed on the basis of olfactory evidence alone and that olfactory evidence is not testing. An extract from the ------ report shows that 1200m3 had been removed on the basis only of olfactory evidence.
22) SD stated that it was important that this report was reviewed because the report and the reactions of the respective parties to that report was crucial in his termination by ------.
23) 2No photographs were displayed - one showed gross contamination at a depth of 1m. The other showed a 4m deep excavation with no sign of gross contamination. SD did not question that there was contamination on the site - only how much there actually was. Only gross contamination needs to be removed.
24) BD- stated that ------ had paid the cost of contamination removal themselves. SD suggested that this cost could be around £1m."
I said at the end of last week that the decision to close 17No Edinburgh Schools for safety critical repairs was taken at a meeting of Edinburgh City Council on 8th April 2016.
ReplyDeleteOver the preceding five-days, the Council had reviewed 17No visual inspection reports, one for each school, which said that the schools were safe, against expert opinions which said they weren't safe. The Council believed the experts and closed the schools; they were correct to do so and Professor Cole said that, and he was very clear about it, in his Report.
This school doesn't have one visual inspection report saying it is safe, it has FIVE visual inspection reports. But, is it safe?
The above minutes of meeting have been accepted as a true record of what was said at the meeting. That doesn't mean that the conclusions that I draw are right, though.
A year later, it was reviewed by the best expert geotechnical engineers in the world and they all agreed with the conclusions. Does that mean that the conclusions are right?..... Of course it does.
That means that, just like in Edinburgh in 2016, the visual inspection reports say that this school is safe, but expert opinion says that the school is unsafe. The decision whether to close the school or keep it open is not for the Council this time, it is for the Scottish Government and that is because it is they who have, so far, said that it is safe and they are the final authority.
Today is 9th April 2023. So, it's decision time isn't it.
Can I suggest that Jackie Baillie and the EIS refer Jenny Gilruth to the Cole Inquiry Report? Professor Cole's key recommendations were:
1. Don't rely on visual inspection reports.
2. Don't rely on lawyers for anything.
3. Do rely on independent experts.
If either Jackie Baillie or the EIS believe that this has little to do with them, then that is not my understanding of the way it works. On the basis of "When did you become aware of this and what did you do to investigate" - they both appear to have legal and professional responsibilities to act and if there were to be an accident at the school, then I suspect that I will be proven correct. But, that is what I have been trying to avoid.
So, we'll see what the next few days brings. One thing is obvious though, we have some systemic failures in the functionality of Holyrood, don't we.
The following is typical of the opinions which were provided in 2017 by the experts of the American Society of Civil Engineers. This is opinion No 44. It is practically the same as my 2016 explanation to Mr Moore and Mr Dodds of the Scottish Government, isn't it.
ReplyDeleteWhat this engineer explains, and he does it in a few words, is that there is only a limited time available to fix this school. Otherwise, it will become unstable to such an extent that it cannot be fixed.
That was the common thread that ran through all of the comments and opinions. That's a lot of expert opinion, all saying the same thing. How much expert opinion does Jackie Baillie have? How much expert opinion does the EIS have?
This type of information, when presented elsewhere in the world, is taken very seriously and is investigated straight away. When I present it in Scotland, to my MSP, she says: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you". That's the end of it as far as Jackie Baillie is concerned. When I present it to the EIS, they refuse to respond.
Mr Murawski, and the others, are recognized as being experts in this field of engineering. What do you think Professor Cole would recommend Jackie Baillie and the EIS do with this information?
I am still waiting on Jackie Baillie getting back to me with an outcome. I presume that everyone else is waiting on the EIS?
"Gregory Murawski, P.Eng:
Without looking at the design and geotech report, likely two issues short and long term need to be addressed. Proper control of the surface runoff to eliminate it as a contributor to the issue cannot be underestimated. Phreatic surface of the groundwater needed to be adequately lowered below the excavation base to remove hydrostatic uplift and to safely protect the footing bearing soils from permanent damage. Hopefully this damage hasn’t happened. Phreatic surface after construction needs to be at the adequate levels below finished grades to keep them dry and stable. Application of temporary and permanent strategically located horizontal and vertical relief drains, blanket drains and curtain drains and diaphragm wall could help. Ground water monitoring should be incorporated in all instances - 8th November 2017."
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI didn't ask you to contact the Scottish Government; that was your decision and you did it without telling me. I asked you, back in early December, to contact Buro Happold and I seem to recall that was Protect's advice to you at the time, too.
It is a final, conclusive engineering judgement by Buro Happold that is required, not a political judgement. We've had enough of those already.
The independent experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) have experienced all of this before, many times; they think differently and we are fortunate to be able to rely upon their input. All that we require to know is if they are correct; I suspect we all know they are correct but it is only Buro Happold that will be able to make that final judgement. Is that agreed and understood by everyone?
If they are correct then I too am correct and it follows that the building is non-compliant and, ergo, unsafe and I imagine that is all that anyone wants to know before the schools go-back after the Easter holiday. That was the key driver during the Edinburgh Schools investigation in 2016 and it is the key driver here, too.
So, that sets the timeline for determining the safety of the school.
The Scottish Government are responsible for providing an outcome for myself that pays my losses and returns me to work. That is all that I, and presumably you, are waiting for and if you agree that the letters by Jonathan Moore that I sent you last week are untrue, and I suspect we know that they are untrue, then the Scottish Government, as Jonathan Moore's employer, are responsible. So, is the Scottish Government letter that we are waiting for going to settle upon an outcome for me?
Please just work on this and leave the safety of the school to be determined by the others.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteThere are two items to be resolved:
1. The final engineering review, to be provided by Buro Happold.
2. My outcome, to be provided by the Scottish Government.
Decisions will have to be made for both by this Friday 14th April, although an earlier date would obviously be preferable.
I do not want to know what Buro Happold's judgement is and so that is why I am asking you to concentrate only on my outcome. If that is what you are proposing to do, then that is fine with me.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteLet me respond to the criticism that I have been sending too many Emails; it has been repeated many times over the years and it is time that I answered it:
If you take a look at Aberdeen Schools Project Comments and Discussion (14), which I attach again for your convenience, one of the experts, Klaas Kinsbergen, responded four times within two days.
His final advice was: "What you can do is put a constant drainage along the perimeter of the school and try to lower the groundwater permanent, this will cost you money and you need to see if it is possible with regulations, in The Netherlands you cannot do that. This will increase the stability of the foundation. Basically this is temporary to go to the final and costly solution..."
It sounds incredibly serious and Mr Kinsbergen's strategy was to communicate that very clearly and that has also been my strategy and I have repeated essentially same message, continually and over a period of years, until I can see that it is being taken seriously and that persistence is required by the ethical code of all engineers.
So, today is Tuesday and I am expecting an outcome by Friday.
George - I received advice from Jackie Baillie earlier that the Scottish Government will respond to me and so I intend to wait for that.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the following is the ethical code for civil engineers. It varies slightly, country to country, but not by much:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in the areas of their expertise.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act in professional matters as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
When all of this started in 2016, I believed that getting the story in the Press would lead to an outcome, but that has never quite materialized.
The main reason for that is because "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion (14)" has never been aired by the Press. I assume they see some possibility of legal repercussions by the ASCE. However, that is not the way it works. All of these engineers are "licensed" and that's the way the profession works there and their opinions are their own and not those of the ASCE.
So, perhaps this web-site has done more to solve this case than even the Press? Certainly, the lawyers would never have solved it in a million years.
The Institution of Civil Engineers have been copied into all of this and so if I have stepped beyond their rules, or if the ASCE members have stepped beyond their rules, then they will inform me of that. I do not believe that any of us have though.
I'll leave it at that for now and I will be in touch with you again at the end of the week.
I asked her on twitter what is happening with this, just in case other business has pushed it slightly off the radar.
ReplyDeleteThe Scottish Government: "They are not facing up to the scale of the crisis and all the excuses currently being offered suggest a tendency to deceive that maybe cannot be extirpated." I read yesterday that their firm of chartered accountants resigned last September and they are experiencing difficulties finding a replacement firm.
ReplyDeleteThey have the same difficulties finding a replacement firm of chartered engineers to audit this design. I realized that in 2016 and so I carried out the audit myself. They didn't believe me and suggested that I was incompetent and so I engaged 40No world experts. Since then?....silence.
The commonality between the two cases is the spectre of 'negligence' that hangs over everyone's head until this is agreed and the drop-dead date for that is this Friday 14th April.
From your personal standpoint, I presume that you looked at this case years ago (I seem to remember it was 2017?) and you thought to yourself: "I'm not an engineer but this all sounds plausible to me; I know these lawyers and they are crooks; so, I'm going to follow this case to find-out what happens". So, you have followed it and we are now a day or two from the end.
I am expecting to be recognized for my persistence and I presume that you are the same?
I had a look at Wings over Scotland 5-minutes ago. He is running with the story of the missing chartered accountants today and you have been running with the story of the missing chartered engineers. Both are good stories of course and deadline day is fast approaching for both. By the way, I noticed that Stuart Campbell's headline is: "Standing on Quicksand" - that should really have been your headline?
ReplyDeleteWe should get a response tomorrow, George. I'm not saying we 'will' get a response tomorrow, I'm saying only that we 'should'. I presume that we are getting some help from the EIS now? We certainly should be.
ReplyDeleteIf we go back to the decision that was made by Edinburgh City Council to close 17No schools to address safety concerns on 11th April 2016, that decision was taken at a meeting of their 'Corporate Incident Management Team' at mid-day on Friday 8th April and the meeting was convened to discuss what was called 'emerging new information' about the safety and compliance of the schools.
There is no emerging new information in the case of this school and it was all explained to Jonathan Moore and Bill Dodds on 17th August 2016 and to Stephen Garvin and Scott Johnson on 23rd May 2019. So, nothing is new and the Scottish Government have simply been keeping this information hidden from public view for many years.
The only decision that has to be made is whether, or not, to open this school on Monday 17th April and that decision is for them. They can open it of course, but they can only open it if it is safe to do so and that is the show-stopper.
I will add only the following two points:
1. If the school is deemed safe to re-open and is not compliant with Design Standards, then that will be considered as a "Reckless Certification" which is within the realms of criminal law.
2. The engineer adequately qualified to make that judgement is a geotechnical expert. As you are aware, many geotechnical experts have reviewed this design in the past and although the question: "is this building safe" was never asked, their responses made it clear, to me anyway, that they would be very unlikely to certify this building as safe. They would be far more likely to certify it as unsafe.
In the Edinburgh Schools scenario, the decision to close the schools on Friday afternoon gave the other schools in Edinburgh, that were going to be asked to accommodate more pupils and teachers in the months ahead, no time to prepare and what followed turned into a chaotic shambles as a result. You may remember, busses were travelling all over the city dropping off pupils and teachers at different locations and collecting them again at the end of the day.
I'm sure that they will not want a repeat of that but, sadly, I am equally sure that our Parliamentarians will do anything at this point to save their own skin and the safety of pupils and teachers comes secondary to that. That has always been my view and recent developments in Scottish politics will add a great deal of weight to that view.
Who carries-out this certification? I would suggest that Stephen Garvin is probably the only engineer with sufficient authority and expertise. He is Head of Building Standards in Scotland and so it is up to him at this point to take the lead and certify the building either as safe, or unsafe. This is not a complex undertaking for a Head of Building Standards and it is his job to do it.
As I have set-out many, many times now - this was a contractor's mistake. It happens from time to time and, as I pointed-out yesterday in the engineers' ethical code, engineers have to make sure that it is fixed, however long it takes. But, instead of fixing it, it's "let's all cover this up" and that way of thinking envelopes everyone and it is encouraged from the very top of Scottish politics. It really should result in a Police led investigation of negligence and malfeasance/misfeasance but I will be astonished if that actually happens.
Thereafter, Jackie Baillie can get back to me with an outcome. As you can imagine, nine years of this takes its toll on you and so tidying-up the loose edges can be left to Stephen Garvin now.
Today is the day that the decision as to whether the school is safe to use or not has to be made. it should be made as early as possible (before mid-day?) by the Scottish Government and communicated to the Council so that they can put contingency measures in place and communicate with parents and teachers, tomorrow. That was one of the main lessons of the 2017 Cole Inquiry.
ReplyDeleteWhat is needed to inform everyone that the school is safe? A design review on the 'as-built', amended design. That can either be by Stephen Garvin himself, or by a geotechnical expert appointed by him and it should be handed over to the EIS, who represent the employees at the school and this data should be freely available to anyone who wishes to see it.
Also today, I am expecting the Scottish Government to appraise Jackie Baillie of the outcome, in terms of repayment of my financial losses and provision of employment, that has been made for me. Jackie Baillie will let me know, I will decide if it is acceptable and I will contact George Laird and Protect to make them aware that their individual contributions have been recognized.
I didn't hear anything today George, which is very disappointing.
ReplyDeleteThere's not much more that I can say at this point and so I'll leave it to the expert geotechnical engineers:
18) "Ir. Selvem Raman (இரா.செல்வம்) - Perhaps, but perhaps differential settlement hasn't started yet! This has to be confirmed through study/assessment. Everything said here will be based on experience and theories and the real cause has to be found through proper studies. However, a couple of things are certain at this stage, i.e. The soil is settling, water is a problem and proper drainage has to be laid quickly to drain out the 'flood' and the level to be kept below apron level, until an appropriate solution is found through adequate studies.- 03rd October 2017".
10) Greg Hayes - An interesting problem. The original Soil Identification Report identified a ground and (problematic) groundwater condition! design assumingly accounted for this! subsequently the groundwater regime was altered (unintentional cut-off trench) from that assessed in the design! The solution would seem to be restore the groundwater regime to that assumed in the design (as Michael posted). It should be considered installing some standpipes above and below the barrier and to the front of the school to understand the groundwater.
Also a reduced bearing due to inundation at foundation level from groundwater is of concern regarding settlement of the building and infrastructure. Diverting/ restoring groundwater should not unintentionally lower the groundwater table. As EC7 (Part 2, 2.1.4) now details groundwater as a principle, P (no alternative) concern regarding foundation design – 28th September 2017".
It all sounds remarkably serious doesn't it. These experts are saying: "Get this investigated and fixed now before it is too late".
You get it, don't you? I obviously get it. I wonder what their problem is? Can they not just ask Stephen Garvin? What's so difficult about that? Just pick up the phone and ask him and do it now!
Big scandal brewing as you know, it takes time, don't give up or get dismayed.
Delete....and here are another two expert opinions:
ReplyDelete"16) Lukman A - Another site geotechnical investigation should be carry out for the school peripheral. This enable delineation of ground water profile post construction of the school and a better solution can be proposed. Ultimately a form of groundwater drainage method or relief wells will have to be done for the site. Good luck - 01st October 2017"
"5) Sivaram Thirumoorthy - What you can do at this stage is to create proper drainage at the site. It could be anything (ex. simple gravel and sand drains at the location where the drainage was previously blocked).
Also, highly recommend to install ground settlement markers at the ground near the building, Building settlement markers at the building itself and tiltmeters at the building to monitor the building movements. During the normal period, monitor at least once in a week and during winter at least once per day – 24th September 2017"
....and another three:
ReplyDelete"17) Eur Ing Dr Stephen Thomas MBA FICE CEng It always amazes me that so many Groundwater problems are not identified and mitigated against during the initial design & construction stage, especially when most saturated soil is around 30% water by volume – 02nd October 2017".
24) Darren Protulipac, P. Eng MASc - glacial tills should not settle. Suggest you evaluate the possibility of excavating and installing french drains widely around your site - on upslope side - discharging along the lower . Hopefully you have enough crossfall. If wet foundations continue - suggest excavating a second cross trench well inside the footprint your french drains and mixing fine grained soils such that you create of homogeneous mixture of less permeable soils - to block or deflect flows long those more permeable horizons within the foundation tills. A good geotechnical engineer should be consulted to review and suggest your best path forward. Just noticed someone's attachment (above). I did not review in detail but this appears similar to what I have described. 3rd October 2017".
25) Bamidele Olaniyi - The solution you proposed is good. You may want to consider reducing the outer trench to about 2m deep and locate some deep large wells across the site (preferably along the outer trench). The areas around the wells should have much higher permeability than the natural soil and should lower the water table across the site. The wells will be connected by smaller and possibly shallower trenches and deliver into the outer trench. You will have to do a groundwater modelling to assess the effects of the wells and optimize their locations, sizes and depths. It is cheaper if the wells are located along the outer trench as other trenches are not required. 4th October 2017".
....It looks very much as if all of the engineers get it too, doesn't it. So, who are we still waiting on?
....and another three:
ReplyDelete"19) Amrit Kumar - Was it possible to collect UDS in this strata? As I can see pictures its boulders and gravel content in the strata. Definitely back filling with same material which has got fine contents (LL = 12%-18% and Pl = 9-12), this type of problem is expected. As sloping face the further drainage paths will carry away fines and such subsidence are expected. I agree with Lukman A, a fresh investigation shall be carried out to exactly spot the problem and further possible solutions. The proposed drainage seems to be one of the solution provided the feasibility of constructing it up to 5m depth? The school building shall be monitored for the ground settlement and building cracks during and after the construction of proposed drainage system. 03rd October 2017".
"33) Omar Zanoli - Difficult to provide guidance without a full picture of the soil and hydrogeology conditions. Would be glad to help if some more details will be available. From my perspective to stop an upwelling flow the best solution would be to install sub-horizontal drains underneath the foundations".
"7) Marilyn Moore, P.E. - Re-establishing drainage paths around and away from the structure is a clear first step. Settlement can still continue and possibly affect the structure due to water softened soils and/or poor compaction of the filled excavation. Was any fill control or monitoring performed? Are there any signs of slope movement? Underpinning may be required in the future even with the drains – 25th September 2017".
My experience has been that if engineers of this standing submit their opinions, they will be taken seriously and investigated very, very quickly by that country's best engineering experts.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't happen in Scotland. Here, you receive an angry letter from John Swinney dismissing it as "no new information" and he sends Police Scotland to your door warning you to "cease and desist". Sadly, that has been the way Scotland has elected to deal with this.
Does anyone else believe that this is " no new information?"
John Swinney's family do not attend this school every day and if they did, he would look upon this entirely differently. I would therefore encourage everyone who is looking at this issue to consider it from that perspective and not from John Swinney's perspective (whatever that is).
As everyone knows, the school re-opens on Monday. So, we have run-out of time. I know that this would happen.
"1) Michael Byle - If the low permeability fill is a barrier, the logical solution would be to install a cut-off drain up-gradient of the barrier and discharge it below the property. Using proper graded filter or geotextile should mitigate particle migration. Without the excess head produced by build-up behind the barrier, the gradient should be reduced to more normal levels where subsurface erosion does not occur – 26th September 2017".
ReplyDelete"2) Francisco Lucena - I recommend you hire a specialist in geological / geotechnical engineering, to evaluate the specific conditions of your problem.
In general, if as it indicates, the excavation broke the original water continuity within the permeable strata, perhaps with a slightly larger excavation with geocomposite and intercalations of geotextiles and geomembranes with gravel and clays, helped with some expansive product to seal, could correct the original condition.
This should only be designed by a specialist.
Like the evaluation where originally recommended special foundations, preventing a possible major affectation to the structures, which should be re-evaluated, to make the corrections necessary to avoid problems in the long term – 26th September 2017".
"5) Sivaram Thirumoorthy- What you can do at this stage is to create proper drainage at the site. It could be anything (ex. simple gravel and sand drains at the location where the drainage was previously blocked).
Also, highly recommend to install ground settlement markers at the ground near the building, Building settlement markers at the building itself and tiltmeters at the building to monitor the building movements. During the normal period, monitor at least once in a week and during winter at least once per day – 24th September 2017".
"6) Adrian Yong - Cutting off the supply of groundwater to the area would allow the subsoil to dry out over time but would that result in vertical settlement ? Another possibility is to restore the through flow of groundwater by constructing drainage paths through this 5m excavated trench(?). If this is possible, it would partially reinstate the original groundwater regime.... – 24th September 2017".
"7) Lars Schmidt As above, cut a drain in u shape around the site on the high side and drain the water off. The ground profile you show there indicates the possibility for artesian conditions and they may have connected two aquifers. Still a good drain should be able to solve the problem – 26th September 2017".
That's another five......do you think that will be enough? It's really not that complex, is it?
I'll give the final word to Eng. Yogesh Shah. He's been a leading figure in geotechnical engineering for a long decades and his input is provided on the basis that: "You're not paying me, but I'm trying to help and I'm doing that because you asked". So, his opinion and, the opinions of all of the others, are honest opinions and they are provided in compliance with the ethical code of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
ReplyDeleteAll I can say at this point is: Thank God for the ASCE, because we would all be lost without them, wouldn't we.
"9) Yogesh Shah - The suggestion by responders above that an interceptor drain be installed on the upstream side of the fill is the most practical and perhaps economical solution for the sloping site. My recommendation is to dig a ditch during low-GWL days to the bottom of the top S&G stratum and to the top of the clay stratum. Then, place an appropriate filter fabric along the sides and bottom of the ditch and a sufficiently large-size perforated/slotted PVC pipe at the ditch bottom, embedded into pea-gravel fill to the top of the gravel stratum. Wrap the filter fabric over the top of the pea-gravel fill and backfill the trench with compacted soil to the final grade. Of course, you have to use sump pumps to drain the trench during excavation and through completion of placement of the drain. Also, the perforated pipe should drain into either manholes (with sump pumps inside) to pump out drain water and appropriately disposed off OR the perforated drain pipe connected to solid PVC drain pipes run downstream to discharge ends to drain off by gravity. Since the building itself is not showing any sign of settlement, it means that the building foundations are set on well-compacted fill. The road settlement shown in the photograph is apparently caused by un-compacted or poorly compacted peripheral fill which the contractor placed after installing the footings. If you intercept the GW dammed up in the gravel stratum upstream of the building and drain it off as explained above, I think, you will have solved the problem.
Perhaps you can analyze your interceptor drain function by an appropriate computer program or a flow net analysis to make sure the GWL in the building area is kept down to a desired level. Also, you have to determine drain-pipe size, pump capacity, etc.
Based on the site data you have given, GW in the lower gravel stratum doesn't have to be intercepted – 28th September 2017".
That's about 16 or 17 opinions from ASCE members that I have posted-up now. In total, there are 47. I don't want to post them all up as it would be repetitive but they exist and if anyone wants to see them they only have to ask.
ReplyDeleteThe way it stands now is that I am waiting on a resolution, which means agreement to pay my losses and return me to work and I am waiting on Jackie Baillie for that.
This is entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Government and no-one else.
I say that because the explanation of the problem that was presented to the ASCE members, and is answered above, was exactly the same as that presented to Jonathan Moore and Bill Dodds of the Scottish Government on 17/8/16 and to Stephen Garvin and Scott Johnson of the Scottish Government on 23/5/19. The ASCE members have all come up with the same answer and the Scottish Government civil-servants have all managed to come up with the opposite answer.
Who is correct? (I think we all know the answer to that).
Ergo, has this building been "Recklessly Certified" as safe over the preceding years by the Scottish Government? It does sound like it and if that is the case then it would be a criminal offence.
As you can imagine, there have been many public and professional bodies involved in this investigation over the past 9-years. Each one of them can take a lesson from the ASCE in "walking the walk" (I don't need to spell it out, do I?). That is something that many in Scotland have forgotten how to do.
So, the school opens again on Monday?
I am only waiting on Jackie Baillie now.
Just for completeness, this is the question that I asked the experts of the ASCE. There were photographs and diagrams included too, but I am unable to post them here.
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, it is exactly the same information that I presented to the 4No civil-servants from the Scottish Government on 17/8/16 and 23/5/19.
The question is: why are more than 40No world experts concerned about this and 4No civil-servants are not concerned? Why is that?
That question cannot be left unanswered. I am expecting to be able to disengage from this within days and leave it to the EIS and so what can the EIS do to achieve an authoritative answer on this when I am no longer here?
My suggestion would be to contact the Institution of Civil Engineers and ask them to advise you. If they determine that the school is safe, then it is safe and if they determine that the school is unsafe (and I expect they will do that) then it is unsafe.
The Institution of Civil Engineers have all of this data and so the EIS only have to ask them. That is what they are there for.
"I RECKON THE 5M DEEP EXCAVATION BELOW THE WATER TABLE CAUSED THE PROBLEM. IS THERE A SOLUTION AT THIS STAGE? – GEOTECHNICAL EXPERT COMMENTS SOLICITED
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
A new school building was built 2 years ago on a sloping site. The building platform was formed using a cut and fill with the site soils. Groundwater flows from the high side of the site to the low side of the site. The winter-time water table level is only 0.5m below ground level. Soil conditions are glacial tills comprising horizontal bands of sands/gravels and bands of clays. Groundwater flows through the bands of sand/gravels in well-defined routes.
A detailed soil investigation report was available. It recommended a ’special foundation solution’ for this site. Nevertheless, standard shallow pad foundations were used. ‘Upwelling water’ is recorded in the soil investigation report meaning that water is passing through the site under a slight hydrostatic pressure.
Before work started, the contractor carried-out a 5m deep excavation across the site from end to end looking for contamination. He didn’t find any contamination and so he filled-in the excavation with the material he had previously excavated. This mixed the sands/gravels and clays together to form an impermeable soil mixture which has blocked the existing underground drainage routes and raised the water table level.
He then commenced construction of the school building. Two winters have passed and, during each winter, ground-water is collecting in the grounds surrounding the school. It takes several days of dry weather for this water to drain away. What looks like subsidence is occurring very close to the building (see photograph). This depression shown in the photograph was designed to be 60mm, but it now looks more like 360mm.
The building itself is presently showing no signs of movement. Is this collapse compression by water inundation, as described some years ago by Tadepalli and Fredlund? They demonstrated that sands and silts under hydrostatic pressure will flow. If so then more of this will follow each winter from now on. From SI report the SBC in DRY state is 150-200 kPa and in WET is < 75 kPa."
I understand that John Swinney reinvented himself yesterday as the diligent constituency MSP for the folk of Perthshire North.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of the observation Adam Tomkins made of John Swinney: “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.”
It would perhaps be unfair to blame all of this on him. That said, there has always been a propensity in Scotland to blame one individual for everything.
The only question that needs asked of the Scottish Government on Monday, by the EIS, is: "Is this school building safe, because many engineering experts have identified a serious fault that could cause it to collapse".
The data on the pages above, which was provided by a whistle-blower, allows that question to be asked. No-one expects whistle-blowers to do everything and so this last step, on the last day, is for the EIS.
Ask that question publicly, so that the response comes back publicly......and quickly. And, no more visual inspection reports, please.
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) are here to help you and several of the respondents were members and fellows of the ICE and they were clear, as the ASCE members were, that this matter is very, very urgent.
Can we all agree on that? It is time for myself, Jackie Baillie, George Laird and "Protect" to step back from this now and leave it for the rest of you.
Maybe he knows that the police will be interviewing him in due course.
DeleteThis case is full of analogies and I will give you another: during the Shirley McKie case, there were 4No finger-prints officers that she accused of lying. The then Lord Advocate argued that the finger-prints officers were 'expert witnesses' and were therefore immune from prosecution, even if it were to be proven that they had lied.
ReplyDeleteThe corollary of that was that we had a biased legal profession in Scotland that would protect some, at the expense of others who were seen as less important and Shirley McKie was seen as less important. There was a entirely negative public reaction to that at the time, but it was never withdrawn.
In the end, 2No American experts who had been consulted by Shirley McKie's father made it painfully obvious to everyone that all of the Scottish finger-prints officers had lied. That aspect of the case seems to have been covered-up over the years, but it caused anger at the time that we in Scotland were supposed to accept dishonest behaviour from civil-servants without any kind of legal or public recourse.
Two American experts thus caused the case to collapse. It was a dark time for all at Holyrood and the Scottish legal profession. But, that was almost 20-years ago.
What we have in this case is another 4No Scottish civil-servants that appear to have lied. This time, it affects not only myself, but it affects all those who use this building every day. Will these civil-servants be prosecuted for lying?....probably not.
Therefore, I have elected to use the same strategy that Shirley McKie's father used and that is to consult with the best experts in the world. Instead of just 2No experts, I have gone for far more than that, believing that it will comfortably outweigh all of the visual inspection reports that the Scottish civil-service have provided.
I wonder if the present Lord Advocate has taken a look at this evidence and who does she believe? Does she believe the American experts listed above, or does she believe that 4No Scottish civil-servants. It's a straightforward question and the answer to it solves this case, doesn't it.
Alternatively, Dr Stephen Thomas contributes his opinion and he is a Fellow of the ICE. Not only that, I understand that he is one of the UK's leading authorities on the subject of groundwater and he is consulted for his advice, worldwide. Does his opinion, repeated again below, not effectively solve this case? I think it does:
"Eur Ing Dr Stephen Thomas MBA FICE CEng - It always amazes me that so many Groundwater problems are not identified and mitigated against during the initial design & construction stage, especially when most saturated soil is around 30% water by volume – 02nd October 2017".
We have the answer already, don't we.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteCan I suggest that the Scottish Government contacts the following engineer? They can contact any of the engineers of course, but I suggest this one as he is known and respected by the Institution of Civil Engineers.
"17) Eur Ing Dr Stephen Thomas MBA FICE CEng - It always amazes me that so many Groundwater problems are not identified and mitigated against during the initial design & construction stage, especially when most saturated soil is around 30% water by volume – 02nd October 2017".
All that is required to provide initial guidance is the Soil Investigation Report, which he has not seen before, and Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments which he has of course seen. I attach both with this Email.
As you know, I would very much like to release myself from this investigation and I presume that my outcome is currently being finalized by the Scottish Government?
Frankly, I am at a loss to understand why this takes them so long. As you can see, the date on the initial opinion is 2nd October 2017 and this matter should have been taken very seriously, by all of the parties that are involved, then, shouldn't it.
Mr Thomas will notice, when he reads the Soil Investigation Report, is that the moisture content is not 30%, it is up to 37% and that was before the land was inundated with water. So, it is now even greater than 37%.
ReplyDeleteHe's an experienced man, but has he experienced anything like this before? Whether he has or not, he has spent a lifetime's work solving problems like this and so if anyone can save the building at this stage, it is him. There are not many others like him, worldwide.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteForgive me for contacting you twice in one day, but it strikes me that the Scottish Government have had quite a lot longer than 20 working-days to respond to this. Would you agree?
Therefore, are you able to give me a drop-dead date by which time this will be resolved to an outcome? That is really all that I want to know just now.
Whether advice and guidance is provided by Mr Thomas, or from someone else, is for all of you to decide but it can be provided very, very quickly on the basis of the information I attached earlier.
Many thanks for your reply, Jackie.
ReplyDeleteThe engineering review is a desktop exercise that will lead to a conclusion. Mr Thomas provided his conclusion as did many others and it was not complex, was it. Ask Stephen Garvin to provide his conclusion, please. Aberdeen City Council and the EIS require to know what it is and I am really surprised that it does not appear to have been handed-over to them today.
Please get back to me tomorrow with an outcome that gets me paid for my losses and returned to work. The Scottish Government may (or may not) have some sort of claim against the contractor, or the law firm in this case but I do not and my claim is against the Scottish Government and I have explained that.
Hence and if it is Shona Robison that is dealing with this, please make that clear to her. You understand the position that I have been left in for many years and so I am asking you to explain that to her. It is now for the rest to start communicating and doing the job that they are all paid to do.
I thought that it might be Jenny Gilruth that was dealing with this now but it's Shona Robison.
ReplyDeleteI don't know either of them but after having dealt with John Swinney since 2016, anything is an improvement.
That chap is so arrogant and fundamentally stupid that he is inevitably going to get people killed.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteNow may be a good time to take this to the Press?
We have all the checks, everyone has reviewed them, and I am not in favour of waiting any longer. It is crucial that we establish whether I am right, or wrong and so I am all for making a decision on this today.
The way whistle-blowing works in Scotland:
ReplyDelete1) The whistle-blower is sure of his case and so he goes to lawyers and pays them £50,000 to investigate the case and give him advice.
2) Instead of doing that, the lawyers cover-up the case and make sure the whistle-blower runs out of time. They do that because that is what the Scottish Government want.
3) In the fullness of time it is revealed that the whistle-blower was right all along.
4) Can this school be fixed? Probably not.
5) If they had listened, insurance would have paid and it would have been fixed by now.
6) Who has liability is it now? The Scottish Government.
It looks as though the lawyers are being blamed and I would be pretty much in agreement with that.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteOK - accepted.
If you cast your mind back to the Buchanan and St Ambrose High School case in Monklands, which was 3 or 4 years ago, it was the EIS and the NASUWT who led that case and it was in the Press and on TV for a number of weeks. The Unions were concerned that the schools were contaminated by ground gas but, in the end, expert opinion concluded that the schools were safe.
Brimmond School is different and all expert opinion tells us that this school is not safe. I am copying this to the Institution of Civil Engineers and to Stephen Garvin and, by doing that, I am inviting them to disagree if they wish.
Our strategy for the past 7-years has been to explain that to the Scottish Government but it very clearly hasn't worked and I see no prospect of it working. They are not even trying and so I would now rather go to the Press.
Everybody else, except the EIS and the NASUWT, accept Emails from me but for whatever reason, they don't accept them. So, I will copy this Email to the Press and leave it to them to contact the Unions.
I reckon that this is the safest course of action just now. If, God forbid, the school deforms or collapses then there are a very large number of international engineering experts who could step forward and say: "I knew that was going to happen".
It is a typical example of whistle-blowing; of making a "public-interest protected disclosure". You have done what you could over the years and I am not complaining about you, but the others have not and their credibility is at risk of being damaged as a result of having been asked to investigate this properly and for not having done so.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI contacted 2No journalists and they have the data.
Presumably this is moving to an outcome now and so I copy Sybille Raphael from Protect to keep her organization informed.
It is 5-years since Protect first became involved and Bob Matheson dealt with the case at the beginning. When he first reviewed the strength of information we had, he was confident that the case would be resolved to an outcome in 1-8 weeks and yet here we are, 5-years later and we still cannot get an honest response from the Scottish Government, or even a drop-dead date by which time an honest response will be provided.
As I made clear this morning, I do not blame you for this but it has turned into a really disgraceful performance by all at the Scottish Government, hasn't it? 1-8 weeks has turned into 5-years and I really struggle to think of any other developed country in the world where that would or could happen.
So, and this is for all of you, whistle-blowers should be released within 1-8 weeks and that is the accepted worldwide standard.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeletePlease remember that all I am looking for just now is an outcome. By that I mean a payment and a job.
I have explained already that my situation was caused by John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Shirley-Anne Somerville and their civil-servants Jonathan Moore, Bill Dodds, Stephen Garvin, Scott Johnson and Fraser Innes.
Hence, I am blaming the Scottish Government and no-one else. The contractor made a serious error, I tried to stop it at the time but I was unsuccessful; it turns out though that I was right to try and I understood that at the time.
I asked you to respond today and give me Shona Robison's proposals for my outcome and you have not responded. Can I therefore ask again?
The reason that I am persisting with this is because a few weeks or months of unemployment is a problem for most, I have had many years of unemployment and that is unsustainable; that's obvious, isn't it?
So, if yourself and Shona Robison leave the engineering to be dealt with by the engineers and deal only with this subject tomorrow, that will be perfect.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI have previously worked alongside other world governments and situations like this one receive immediate attention and, after the lessons of the Cole Inquiry, that should be happening also in this country. All governments write letters of course, but they meet and speak to each other, one to one, and by phone. That means that when the letters are finally written, they are conclusive; effectively they are official confirmation of what has previously been discussed and agreed. So, these letters do not contain any surprises and that's the way it works.
In the context of the Cole Inquiry, Edinburgh City Council held meetings and used every means of communication that worked for them. Again, letters were written, but it was at the end of the process, not at the beginning and this is all explained in Professor Cole's Report. If he was to understand that the whole process has stalled and that we are waiting for a letter being written, at some unknown time in the future, by Shona Robison, he would be astounded by that, wouldn't he and that is all that I am asking you to accept.
Therefore, can you contact Ms Robison by phone, or Email, or just go and visit her and explain that I am asking to have my situation resolved to an outcome, today? What I am asking for is straightforward and is achievable.
Can you respond later today and let me know what she says please.
OK Jackie.
ReplyDeleteI will write to Shona Robison today and copy-in the others as this is not acceptable. With respect, it is not for members of the public to do what I am having to do here, is it?
Dear Ms Robison,
ReplyDeleteI understand that my constituency MSP Jackie Baillie MSP wrote to you a number of weeks ago requesting that you carry-out a proper investigation into the safety of Brimmond School in Aberdeen. Specifically, the agreed design of the school was changed at the last minute by the Contractor and it is expected, by many expert engineers, that this change will cause the building to sink and that will cause it to deform and possibly collapse.
The designer, Buro Happold, has never checked the amended design, even although many other worldwide engineers have checked it. Perhaps if Buro Happold did that, checked the amended design and reported the results of that check to all interested parties, this problem, which I'm sure you will agree is extraordinarily grave, could be solved very quickly?
Do Buro Happold have a contractual duty to answer this? Yes they do. Do they have an ethical duty as professional engineers to answer it? Yes they do. Can they be anything less than honest? No they can't. So, can I suggest that you ask them and that you do that today? Your Head of Building Standards, Stephen Garvin, understands the engineering and he can assist you.
As I explained to Jackie Baillie earlier, it is the function of government to ensure that a proper independent investigation takes place and that the school is fixed. Separately, I have asked Jackie Baillie, as my constituency MSP, to assist me in being paid my losses by the Scottish Government and returned to employment and I am waiting for her to return to me on that.
To assist you, I attach the opinions of expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). These opinions, which were submitted in late 2017, are the engineer's own opinions and do not represent those of the ASCE. That said, they are very consistent, they come from many of the most distinguished engineers in the world, and they certainly alarm me.
Jackie Baillie was unable to give me a drop-dead date by which time you would issue your response to this. What I will say is that when your letter is issued, it should answer all of the points raised above.
I will not be leading this investigation to any kind of conclusion and I will leave that to Stephen Garvin. My concern now is that I am provided the opportunity to leave this behind for the rest of you to resolve and I can get-on with the rest of my life. So, can I ask you to agree that with Jackie Baillie today, please? She will be in Edinburgh later-on today and I would very much like this to be agreed to an outcome by then.
Dear Ms Robison,
ReplyDeleteLet me add two points that were discussed earlier today with Jackie Baillie:
1) She explained to me that a letter has to be written by you and that letter will propose an outcome for me. It was explained that this is Holyrood protocol and I accepted that. She is aware of what is required and I will leave it to her to represent my interests. Once an outcome is accepted, that will be the end of my involvement and I am expecting that to be ready by the end of today.
2) The more important point, as far as you and the others are concerned, is the ongoing safety and safety certification of the building. Can I suggest that all of you have input into that? Those of you who are not engineers can simply ask for guidance from those who are engineers and it is crucially important that proper and regular communication takes place between all of you.
That is all I would like to add.
George - I very much hope to be finished with this soon. You may recall I used to refer to Engineer H? I was referring to Hugh Mallett, who is Buro Happold's Technical Director.
ReplyDeleteJackie Baillie first wrote to him in March 2022 and he replied 5-months later with a disappointing letter which said nothing and so that was a missed opportunity for him to realize the mistake and to get this fixed.
He's an engineer who is, in terms of seniority, on a par with Stephen Thomas and many of the other ASCE members whose opinions you already have. The difference is that Hugh Mallett is the engineer with "contractual authority" to speak about this case and when he speaks, the others (and I am referring to Scottish parliamentarians, civil-servants, lawyers etc) must listen. The forty-odd experts are experts most of whom are at least on a par with Hugh Mallett, but they have no contractual authority for Brimmond School and so they can be ignored. It's not a good idea to ignore them of course, but that is what has happened. They cannot ignore Hugh Mallett though.
So, it's been a battle, almost a nine-year long battle, to get Hugh Mallett to speak and he has done that, at last.
Will he say something that is different to that said by the other engineers. In other words, will he disagree with them and therefore with me? I have no doubt that he is coming under pressure to do that, but I don't think he can, or will disagree. He is obviously reticent to speak, simply because what he says may lead to very expensive and disruptive decisions having to be made. However, his reticence has been overcome at last and he has spoken.
Once his opinion is known, we can determine whether I have been right or wrong, since 2014. The Institution of Civil Engineers are watching over this and so I am confident that it will end as a honestly fought contest. It shouldn't have been necessary of course.
Is his opinion known already? Yes, it is. Do I know what his opinion is? No, I don't.
I'm just waiting for a letter from Shona Robison setting-out an outcome for me. It's more than 10-days overdue already, but I'll let you know when I get it.
Dear Ms Robison,
ReplyDeleteEveryone is waiting for your letter. You only require guidance from Hugh Mallett of Buro Happold, who will confirm to you if I and the other engineers are correct, but he will only do that if you ask him. I presume that you have done that?
Dear Jackie,
Can you advise the date of your letter to Ms Robison and the date of her expected reply? This school has been described as a prima-facie risk to the safety of the public and that means that any investing authority will consider these dates as crucial.
Dear ICE,
Any assistance you can offer to Ms Robison, Ms Bailley and Mr Mallett just now would, I'm sure, be appreciated by everyone. This is a whistle-blowing case and that aspect of it has not been appropriately understood.
Dear ICE,
ReplyDeleteUndernoted is the complaint that I made against Jonathan Moore under the ICE's code of ethics. It was made on 10th June 2021 and it was sent to your London office.
The finding that came back 4 months later was very short, half a page, and it stated that Jonathan Moore was correct to depend upon a visual inspection report.
I knew then that this was going to turn into mess as a result of that finding, and so it has and you can see that for yourself.
Can you read through this complaint again please and contact Ms Robison, Ms Baillie and Mr Mallett, as I asked earlier? I think that you all need to talk.
Who leads this to a conclusion? That would normally be the job of the professional institution - would you agree with that?
Dear ICE,
ReplyDeleteLet me expand upon what you can do to help at the moment:
A Fellow of the ICE, Stephen Thomas, responded to the problem at Brimmond School thus: "Eur Ing Dr Stephen Thomas MBA FICE CEng - It always amazes me that so many Groundwater problems are not identified and mitigated against during the initial design & construction stage, especially when most saturated soil is around 30% water by volume – 02nd October 2017". I responded by saying that the soil at Brimmond School was up to 37% water by volume.
He is perhaps the UK's foremost groundwater expert? It is accepted that his opinion is his own and not that of the ICE or the ASCE, but there are another 46No others saying the same thing and so it is perhaps reasonable to assume that their opinions are correct?
Does the submission of this package of information outweigh a visual inspection report by a structural engineer? Of course it does. The problem is that you have decided that it doesn't. This story may end-up in the Press again and if it does, you may wish to reconsider that decision.
I have included Jackie Baillie, Shona Robison and Hugh Mallett in the distribution of this Email. I see the authoritative body responsible for communicating and guiding the others on all engineering matters is primarily Buro Happold and if they refuse to engage, then it is the ICE. Would you all agree with that?
Dear Jackie and Ms Robison,
That just leaves you both to agree the outcome for myself and if we leave engineering to the engineers and you both deal only with my outcome, that should simplify the situation enormously. As I have explained before, this can proceed. Please respond to me today and let me know how you are getting on with this.
George - I've decided that Holyrood has been designed to fail and to let you down. Jackie Baillie has sent a letter to Shona Robison; I don't know what the letter says, Jackie's not an engineer so I doubt if the letter is one that I would have sent; she doesn't tell you when she sent it, or when she expects a reply. It's perpetual stasis and it goes-on for years.
ReplyDeleteSo, this way, the ICE and Buro Happold have been asked to advise everyone else whether the school is safe or not. Leave it to them.
That leaves Jackie and Shona Robison to deal only with my outcome and that should be straightforward enough.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteAllow me to update everyone:
1) I have been waiting on a letter from from Shona Robison to be delivered to me, via Jackie Baillie, for in excess of 6-weeks. The letter would be in reply to a letter that Jackie Baillie sent to Ms Robison. I have been asking when the letter was sent to Ms Robison, what questions the letter asked and when we should expect a reply and Jackie Baillie hasn't responded. It is unlikely, based upon experience, that the right questions have been asked, although I may be wrong. Neither Jackie Baillie or Shona Robison are engineers or engage with engineers to ask questions and so proceeding any further and waiting any longer is fraught with problems and will most likely turn-out to be a waste of everyone's time.
2) To expedite matters, I asked Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers to take-over the engineering investigation and I did that earlier today. Can I presume that everyone is in agreement with that? Both of these organizations have the design data and they understand the discontinuous, confined artesian conditions affecting the school and that is first and foremost, but they also have the geotechnical expertise and can work to an organized timeline. Buro Happold have a contractual duty to investigate and report honestly and both have an ethical duty to investigate and report honestly and so we can leave it entirely to them now. I have not asked to see the results of their work and that is for all of you.
3) I expect the decision as to whether the school building is safe to use, lies with Stephen Garvin and he can make that decision based upon the results of the Buro Happold/Institution of Civil Engineers design review results. He may wish to keep all of you informed of their findings on an ongoing basis so that the outcome doesn't come as a complete surprise to anyone. He may also wish to review the school's Health and Safety File and Safety Certificate, but that is for him.
4) I have not been keeping the either the Teaching Unions or Aberdeen City Council copied-in, but they are the primary duty holders under the Health and Safety at Work Act and so they should at least be kept informed. I presume it is for a Parliamentarian to do that?
5) I have asked Jackie Baillie to concentrate all of her efforts on achieving an outcome for me and I presume that you are all in agreement with that. I have her to proceed with that straight away.
I have again elected to copy-in Sybille Raphael of Protect to keep her informed. All of you know what the results of this investigation are likely to show and so it is with great anger that I find myself left in a position, by all of you with the exception of Ms Raphael, that I have had to do this extraordinary amount of investigative work while all the rest of you sat on your hands and did nothing. Forgive me, but that is nowhere near good enough and you are fortunate that a structural deformation or collapse has not already occurred as a result of it.
Finally, all that I require from here is a outcome to be worked-out on my behalf by my constituency MSP, Jackie Baillie.
Dear Ms Winfield,
ReplyDeleteI have the utmost respect for Buro Happold and I am not somehow seeking to blame your company and so let me be very clear about that. A mistake was made by the contractor and I have stated that many times now.
The correct procedure when a design is changed, is for the proposed change to be checked by your design engineers and that was never done. I didn't think, at the time, that the design change was going to work and I asked for it to be checked and I was terminated for doing that.
A month after I was terminated, I asked again for it to be checked at Hub, Aberdeen City Council and Harper MacLeod, but I wasn't taken seriously and nothing was done and that is the basis of the problem we are in.
I did not report it to Hugh Mallett, but why didn't Hub, Aberdeen City Council and Harper MacLeod report it to Hugh Mallett? My duty at the time was to report it to a "responsible person" and I did that. I paid Harper MacLeod to report it to Hugh Mallett, or to Fairhurst, but it turns out they did neither.
The point regarding Hugh Mallett is that he is the engineer with contractual authority and, what I mean is, that if he says that he has checked this design change and it is OK then that will be accepted by everyone.
The impression that some people have at the moment is that he has checked this design change, but he hasn't. All that I will say is that when either yourself or Hugh respond to this question, you should be very, very clear in the language you use. Have you checked it - "yes" or "no"? I don't think you have checked it, but others think you have and that's the problem. Engineers get themselves into a lot of trouble if they give the impression that they have checked something and they haven't checked it.
As far as the present situation is concerned, we can either have the land and the building checked by Jackie Baillie and Shona Robison and God knows how long that will take, or we can have it checked by Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers. If we are all serious about getting this building made safe, then we have to get it checked by Buro Happoold and the Institution of Civil Engineers, don't we?
You are employed under contract by the client who is I believe Hub/Aberdeen City Council and I understand that. You will require to be instructed by them to carry-out this work and that is what: "Can I presume that everyone is in agreement with that?" refers to.
So, I am making the suggestion, but the instruction for you to mobilize will have to come from them. With respect, it is about time this client did something useful because, so far, I have been left to do everything for them. They have paid for nothing and they have done nothing.
So, in summary:
1) Buro Happold to be instructed by Hub/Aberdeen City Council to carry out a geotechnical design review, based upon the information provided in Aberdeen Schools Project Comment and Discussion (attached) and the Soil Investigation Report (attached). This is required as a geotechnical limit state has been reached.
2) Buro Happold to be instructed by Hub/Aberdeen City Council to produce a design review report setting-out the design recommendations required to restore the design to compliance.
I have read Hugh Mallett's reports before and he is an expert on this subject and I accept that.
Finally, let me make the following point that illustrates my understanding of the way, the only way really, that this design will work: The site contained marginal glacial till soils. They are described as marginal because they are at the bottom of a hill and so are very wet. The maximum available bearing capacity when dry was 150kN/m2 and the required available bearing capacity for the design to work was 150kN/m2. So, there was really no margin for error and, for the design to work, the soil had to remain dry. There were confined artesian layers contained within the subsurface soils and everyone knew that. Your team at the time were adamant that the building should sit on top of the soil and shouldn't penetrate these layers and that was the main reason that piled foundations were rejected in the end. I understood and accepted that. Now, when the contractor excavated to a depth of 5m right across the site, there was very little chance of any building surviving on the site after that. I am slightly surprised that they even managed to get it built in the first place. Hence, the water you see is ground water which is upwelling to the surface and that is incredibly serious. The sinking of the land which is taking place is due to the effects of scour washing fine sand and silt from the subsurface soils. Sometimes mistakes happen just because a contractor simply doesn't understand something and that is what happened here. The school looks very good, but it contains a really serious latent defect. Some say it can be fixed and others say it cannot be fixed and so that is the problem that the client has to address with all the expert help he can gather together. Again, that is the client's problem. I am trying to help this client, but it is not easy.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms Winfield,
ReplyDeleteFurther to our exchange of Emails yesterday, the trailing Email from Jackie Baillie, attaching a letter from John Swinney illustrates the problem that I have had, but it is a problem for Buro Happold, the Institution of Civil Engineers and all of Scottish engineering at the moment.
When a decision like this is made and expressed so clearly by senior parliamentarians in Scotland, it becomes extraordinarily difficult to prove that they are wrong and that the decision should be looked at again and reversed and this case proves that, doesn't it.
That letter was written approximately 4-weeks after "Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments" was produced. So, experts from all over the world sent their opinions to me and I complied the data, I sent it to Jackie Baillie and she sent it to John Swinney; each took a quick look at it and decided that it was "no new information". What can I say - it's extraordinary, isn't it.
I accepted yesterday that Hugh Mallett was an expert, but the ASCE members are experts too. Jackie Baillie and John Swinney are not experts and yet their opinions are final and I'm sure that everyone can see the problems that creates. These are not small problems and they may go-on to be insolvable engineering disasters, waiting to happen.
The impression that has been given over the years is that Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers have checked this design change and that you have accepted it. You have both had the opportunity to review that but you have elected not to do so and that is why I am suggesting that you both take a very close look at this now because the prospect of Jackie Baillie and Shona Robison doing it, should greatly concern all of us.
As I said yesterday, I trust Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers and that is why I propose to leave this investigation to you and there is now no need for me to remain involved.
One specific point you may all wish to consider is Scotland's treatment of whistle-blowers, which seems to be at least twenty to forty years behind most other countries and if something can be done to address that, then everyone would stand to gain from it.
Dear Jackie,
I have asked you many times to put in place an outcome for me in terms of payment of my losses over the years and a return to work and you are not responding. Please do something about this with your colleagues at Holyrood respond to me today and copy-in Sybille Raphael at Protect.
Are we at the very end now, George? I think we might be.
ReplyDeleteDear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to write to the Deputy First Minister regarding matters of geotechnical engineering, then it would be appropriate for you to either let me write the letter for you, or ask me to read and approve your letter before you sent it and you did neither.
When parliamentarians start making decisions on behalf of engineers, it can turn into an absolute disaster and my previous Email demonstrated that and so never again, please.
Yourself and the Deputy First Minister are neither qualified nor experienced to be providing guidance on this subject and that can only be done by the experts at Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers. I presume that we are all agreed on that?
All that I am asking you to do is achieve an outcome for me from the Scottish Government. The request could hardly be simpler; I must have re-stated it 20-times already and so just do it, please.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteMy outcome is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Whistle-blowers should be protected and be released within 1-8 weeks - this case has extended to almost 9-years now; there was no reason for that to have occurred, and that causes of significant problems as I'm sure you can understand.
OK Jackie, thanks.
ReplyDeletePursue that for me please; that is all that I am asking you to do. I do not want to be ignored or to wait on letters from you or anyone else - just an outcome that gets me paid and gets me back to work.
Leave everything else to the experts from now on.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI presume we are close to the end of this now and so I copy-in all of the parties that are involved.
There are only two issues:
1. The Safety of the School: I have suggested that the as-built design is properly checked by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and Buro Happold (BH). It appears that John Swinney has declared it safe and everyone else has only given the impression that it is safe without actually doing the necessary design checks. That is disappointing and, from an engineering standpoint, it is not acceptable. Both the ICE and BH will wish to ensure that situation is corrected and the proper as-built design check data is recorded. I will leave that to them and I will not contact them again.
2. My Outcome: Lawyers are not involved in achieving an outcome for me and that is entirely for you. You wrote to Ms Robison some time ago but because I didn't see the letter before it was sent, I do not know when it was sent, what the letter asks her to do, or when she will respond and you will appreciate that does not help. When the matter is urgent, it would be more effective to speak to her by telephone and I have asked you to do that. I say again that I fail to understand why this takes 6-weeks.
My own view on this has always been that once the as-built design is properly checked by experts, that will be the show-stopper for all of all of the parties that are involved here and, with that in mind, I would expect all of you to act with the proper urgency.
I am only waiting for you getting back to me with an outcome and so please do that.
George - this has been a cover-up by Holyrood parliamentarians and the only experts anyone wants to speak to are engineers.
ReplyDeleteWhen the engineers have reviewed this (and they have already done that) the first question that the public will want to know is "can this school be fixed". So far, some have said: "yes it can" and others have said: "no it can't". So, all that we are waiting for is the final engineering decision.
If it can be fixed, BH will design a scheme which will be belt and braces, for obvious reasons.
Then, once that is done, the Scottish Government ask their lawyers: "who pays for this?"
If it cannot be fixed and the decision is made to rebuild from new on a different site, then the cost of that may be in the order of £30million.
This could all have been avoided of course and the question will be asked why it wasn't avoided when there have been so many missed opportunities to do so.
My answer to it though would be that malfeasance is endemic at the Scottish Government and this is an inevitable consequence of that. The trickle-down effect means that hardly anything else in Scottish public life works the way it should, either.
As I said a week or so ago, this may all be blamed on one man, Mr Swinney.
If it hadn't been for my persistence of course, this would have remained hidden until a collapse occurred and then Jackie Baillie would have said: "I'm not an engineer" and the lawyers would have said: "I'm not an engineer either".
At last then, we are speaking to the engineers before a collapse occurs and not after.
I have made it very clear to Jackie Baillie and all of the others that it is the Scottish Government that are due to pay me and to return me to work.
When they pay me I will be expecting of course that they also make a healthy payment to you and to Protect for all that you have done.
It's been a disappointing performance by all at Holyrood (that's quite an understatement, isn't it).
"Scotland is in a dreadful mess and the mess ain’t cleaning itself up" - Robin McAlpine, 21/4/23
ReplyDeleteGeorge - I don't want to post-up any more for now as I am wanting to have a closing meeting on Friday with Jackie Baillie where everything will be settled.
ReplyDeleteSo, I want to keep it reasonably confidential but not entirely confidential because experience shows that if I do that, Jackie will do nothing.
The safety of the school can now be determined by the engineers at the ICE and BH. Thereafter, they can all communicate and decide what has to be done.
My point to Jackie was that I reported this to the Scottish Government in 2014, 2015 and 2016. That was the time for them to investigate honestly. They didn't do that and so all of my losses during the intervening years when I have been blacklisted are their responsibility.
As you know, I have tried to get them to listen, and the experts have tried to get them to listen. If they refuse to listen, then I will not be paying for that.
I'll let you know what happens tomorrow.
I change my mind:
ReplyDeleteDear Jackie,
When Mike Russell settled Shirley McKie's case for her, he was a backbench opposition MSP but that didn't slow him down. You are a Deputy Leader and you have much stronger evidence than he had.
You previously said that the DFM would issue a response within 20-working days and by the time that Friday is upon us we will have waited for 7-weeks (or perhaps longer?) and that is too long.
The engineering case that I have been explaining since 2016 has been accepted entirely by the ICE and by BH. Are you aware of that? Hence, I am asking for my case to be settled, on Friday. Can you let the DFM know that please.
"Please do not email me further" - remarks like this don't belong in engineering. Ask advice from whoever you like but that is a fundamentally stupid thing to say under the circumstances.
Dear Ms Winfield,
ReplyDeleteI am now corresponding only with Jackie Baillie MSP and Sybille Raphael and I mentioned that last week. I am interested principally in achieving an outcome for myself at this point and the safety of the school can be left to the rest of you and I therefore do not expect any further involvement from here.
One item came-up earlier today and I should pass it on so that you are all aware of it. The following was the opinion of Protect and it was issued on 30th November last year. Nothing has changed since then and so this describes the current position:
"The issue, as I understand it, is that there is a prima facie case of significant risk to the public, and those in charge appear to be relying only on visual reports as a rebuttal - however visual reports have been previously established as inappropriate and inadequate in these circumstances.
The key is getting someone with responsibility to answer to this point; all the better if they are qualified to give their professional view on the safety (or lack thereof) of the building as well.
Just as much as responsibility shouldn’t rest on Stephen’s shoulders to push this point, nor should it rest on Jackie’s to amplify it; nevertheless, without either of you it’s clear that nothing would be done. Both of you are owed a lot of plaudits for your persistence".
I explained to Jackie that the comments and opinions of ASCE members that I sent last week to the ICE and BH were sent for review and they can either accept, or refuse to accept this submission. But, if they say nothing, they are deemed to have accepted it and I assume that everyone realizes that? I advised Jackie that this information has already been accepted by both of you as it has been in your possession for several years. Is that agreed?
Secondly, it is for the ICE and BH to answer paragraph 2 (the key is getting someone with responsibility to answer.....)
I am expecting to attend a meeting on Friday which will finally end my involvement in this case.
I believe that the investigation is now underway, George. I don't know how long they plan to take, but it should be over by the end of today. As usual, everything is veiled in secrecy. I'm still therefore expecting the meeting to go-ahead on Friday.
ReplyDeleteI'm expecting to hear from Jackie Baillie later today. My involvement is at an end and I want paid and back to work and it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government to do that.
ReplyDeleteI'll tell you an amusing story which demonstrates just how badly served the public are by our parliamentarians and lawyers:
ReplyDeleteOver the years I have been assisted by the American Society of Civil Engineers; I must have said that a hundred times now and approximately 40No of their members supported me. There was never any doubt that these engineers were genuine; they all identified themselves and the Scottish Government was free to contact them directly.
Against my 40No, the contractor had one expert. I could identify the chap but I don't want to and it turns out that he has been a fraudster. He is not even allowed to express an authoritative opinion on this subject by the engineering profession in the US. Nevertheless, all at the Scottish Government have been listening to this guy and ignoring me, since 2017.
Does it takes a special kind of malfeasance to disregard 40No world experts and listen instead to a fraudster from New York? If you do it repeatedly for more than 5-years, then it does.
My opinion, after dealing with this for so long, is that the Scottish Government is beyond saving.
My guess is that they are all saying: "Not me, I know nothing", at the moment.
We certainly aren't served by the political class, they take ages to do anything, even if you have helped them in the past.
DeleteDear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteThe undernoted Parliamentary Question may be the quickest way to get this finished?
"My constituent attended a meeting with the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore and Bill Dodds on 17th August 2016 at Denholm House, Livingstone. Minutes of the meeting were produced and are attached. At the meeting, my constituent explained that an unauthorized design change by the contractor who built the school would inevitably cause the building to collapse.
Jonathan Moore responded with an unreferenced letter, attached, dismissing my constituent's concerns.
My constituent has suffered significant attrition to his living standards since 2016 caused by continual unemployment which is caused by being blacklisted. It has now been established that his concerns were correct and that the Scottish Government was wrong. What does the Scottish Government propose to do to compensate my constituent."
As I have said, I don't know what we are waiting on in terms of a response from Shona Robison because I do not know the question you have asked. Therefore, this is the question that should be asked.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI wish that you would stop responding to me as if I am some kind of nuisance. The "Parliamentary Question" was to explain that the situation that everyone finds themselves in just now is needless; there was no reason for this to have occurred and it has been the fault of the arrogance of the Scottish Government and had it not been for my persistence, this building would have collapsed.
As well as a payment to myself and a job, I have asked for a separate payment to be made to "Protect" and to George Laird for the assistance they have provided. Both looked at this case in early 2018 and made the decision that I was probably correct and they have gone-on to provided reliable support to me over the intervening years. Had it not been for them I, and everybody else, would be facing an entirely different outcome just now and so please ensure that Ms Robison is aware of that.
It is your job to represent my interests and if I start contacting Shona Robison direct, it just turns it into an even bigger mess that it is already. So, you do it, please.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing "additional" and I have asked for this before, several times in fact. Sybille hasn't been copied in to much, relatively speaking, but I'm sure that she has seen this before?
Just ask me what is required to solve this...write a letter to Shona Robison, or whoever you like...run the letter past me first and give me the opportunity to approve it...then send the letter and copy it to me.
Then I know the letter is correct and I know when a reply can be expected. This is not complex stuff, is it?
I am a qualified and experienced engineer and I have been unemployed for the best part of 9-years due to this. Remember that please and it will keep you grounded in reality.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI requested a closing meeting in your office, tomorrow?
Your letter appears to have been sent to Shona Robison in early-mid March and so you have had plenty of time to discuss and agree this.
If the outcome is acceptable I will accept it, and if it is not acceptable I won't accept it. To do either, I will first need to know what outcome the Scottish Government proposes?
So, let me know that today, please.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteYou haven't responded and that is disappointing. Is tomorrow's meeting 'on' or 'off' and if it is 'off', when will it take place? I am only waiting on you now and so please respond.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI believe I have sent over a thousand Emails, almost all of which have been repetitive in one way or another. I should only have had to send one Email and it should have been taken seriously and investigated properly at the time. I somehow think that point is lost on all of you.
God help the engineering profession in this country if a whistle-blowing case takes 9-years to investigate and is decided upon by Shona Robison. So I repeat, for the forth or fifth time, I require a date for a closing meeting, please.
All that she needs to know in order to make her determination is whether I am right, or wrong and we know the answer to that question already.
George - This is the Email I was referring Jackie Baillie to. I have sent this to you a number of times over the years. It was sent on 13/9/14 and it was the only Email that I was required to send and my involvement should have ended within the following few weeks. That never happened and I have had to send more than a thousand others since then, almost all of them a repetition of what is said here, and that was necessary because no-one took it seriously and investigated at the time. It was Mr Swinney that made that catastrophic engineering decision, unilaterally and without asking for advice from anyone and he is fortunate than no-one has been killed as a result.
ReplyDeleteNo-one has been sacked for this, or disciplined in any way. It's as if there is some sort of Scottish Government force-field protecting each of them. The chap that I sent this to is a Director and, at the end of it and whatever happens, he will still be a Director.
So, when you have lawyers like Bruce and parliamentarians like John Swinney acting as decision makers in engineering, you can expect it to go wrong. Many people will suffer losses of one sort or another, but none of those who caused the losses to occur will suffer any kind of a loss themselves:
"Bruce,
Ogilvie's final letter to me was dated 10th September 2014. These photographs were taken on 11th September 2014 and show that the process of subsidence has already started. The cracks in the soil in then foreground of each photograph mark the edge of the 5m deep trench which was excavated in the search for contamination.
No contamination was found, but the soils within these trenches will now be subject to 'inundation, soil collapse and subsidence'. What you are seeing now will worsen during the winter months when the water table level rises and the moisture content of the surface soils increase.
The consistency of the soil within the trenches will soften to the extent that, in places, the soils will have the consistency of a slurry. It is therefore dangerous and it should be recognised, discussed and recorded now. These photographs will allow this process to get started.
As the letters show, I have discussed this over numerous iterations with Ogilvie's senior management. There is no recognition from them, either in writing or verbally, that there is a problem and so they have no intention of putting any remedial actions into place. Ogilvie's Construction Director appears to have an entrenched view that subsidence will not occur. Experience shows that in situations like this either nothing is done by the contractor, or some reluctant and half-hearted remedial work is done at the last minute which will not solve the problem.
Aberdeen City Council's geotechnical advisers are Fairhurst and Partners. They will understand what has happened and they will be able provide independent advice to Aberdeen City Council.
From my personal point of view, I wanted to resolve this as an employee of Ogilvie and I wanted to finish the project and ensure that it was successful. 'Whistleblowing' is not therefore something that I chose to do, but something that I have been forced into doing."
George - We appear to be days away from an outcome? You have followed this case for five years and there is something undeniably familiar about it isn't there, as if you have been here before? We are though heading for a better outcome this time.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you have ever watched BBC's "Line of Duty"?
It followed the story of the "Department AC-12" of the Central Police as they investigated "bent coppers". When the Police are dishonest, many others can be dishonest too and, as long as there is something in it for everyone, it goes-on, and on, and on and is incredibly hard to stop.
In Scotland we don't have Department AC-12, but we do have bloggers like yourself. We probably don't have bent coppers but we do have bent lawyers and they work in the same ways to achieve the same outcomes as the bent coppers did. Their clientele is different of course, but that's all.
That analogy makes sense to me.
The Chief Investigating Officer in Line of Duty was the NI Actor, Adrian Dunbar who worked on a case until he solved it. Our Chief Investigating Officer is Shona Robison and, as the above Email to "Bruce" explains, I solved the case for everyone in 2014 and nothing has changed since then. I have just had to repeat the same stuff more than a thousand times because no-one has been listening. She doesn't have to do anything; just sit on a chair and deliver a determination.
This is undeniably the job of government and so please get-on with it and deliver your verdict. I, and I'm sure many others, are waiting for your answer.
This is from lawyer "Bruce" and it was dated 18/5/15. I reported my concerns to him in 13/9/14 and he returned with this, more than 8 months later:-
ReplyDelete"Although there are other important issues to be considered such as whether or not the disclosures fell within one of the types of subjects that can be the subject of disclosure, and whether or not you made the disclosure properly, in the public interest, and indeed whether or not you in fact made the disclosures (given that the respondent does not appear to accept you made any such disclosure), the primary focus of the judge in practice will be to establish whether or not (i) you were dismissed by performance reasons (as contended by Ogilvie) or (ii) your dismissal was by reason of whistleblowing."
Whistler-blowing cases ought to be investigated more or less immediately (that's obvious isn't it) and I asked Bruce to do that but after 8-months he has done nothing. The school has been built and it is now to late to do anything about it and Bruce has just realized that.
Hence, and since then, Bruce has been terrified that he is going to be found out. He has been protected (for whatever reason) by John Swinney. So, I have been up against one of the biggest law firms in the country and the Scottish Government (they should be separate entities of course, but I have never been convinced that they are) and so it was never going to be a fair contest.
There you are; it's all spelled-out for you here. I would expect everyone to get this now, including Shona Robison.
I have been nuisance value to them over the years and they can ignore me and my Emails. However, if public safety has been put at great risk, needlessly, to preserve the reputation of a lawyer and a parliamentarian, then the public reaction to that will be entirely negative.
Am I correct? It looks as though I am, but we'll leave that to Shona Robison to explain. I only wish that she would hurry-up though.
One final point - in all the time that I was dealing with Bruce, I was paying him. I shouldn't have been paying him but I was. The invoiced amounts ranged from £1500/month + VAT to £3,000 or £3500/month + VAT. So, not small amounts of money. He didn't do anything for that, did he? Now, that indicates, to me anyway, a real systemic problem within that profession. It's not fit for purpose, is it.
ReplyDeleteThat's another week gone-by and still no outcome from Jackie Baillie. She can only inform me of course once Shona Robison has made her decision, but what are they finding so complex?
ReplyDeleteThe case has split into two separate strands now and both strands are to be managed to an outcome by the Scottish Government's Deputy First Minister, Shona Robison. Experience shows that this can be done within days, so why are we all waiting?
Strand 1 is the safety of the building. Along with the Scottish Government, the interested parties are the Institution of Civil Engineers, Buro Happold, the EIS and the Council. Are either of these parties causing a hold-up? No. So, all that they are waiting on is Shona Robison.
Strand 2 is an outcome for me which includes payment and a job and recognition (and that means payment) for George Laird and the whistle-blowing charity "Protect". Is strand 2 contingent upon strand 1? No, it is not.
Who pays then? Because that will be seen as an admission of liability. That can either be:
1. The Scottish Government
2. The Contractor
3. the Law Firm
If the building cannot be fixed, and that is a possibility at this stage, than the cost of providing a new school on a new site may be £30m. Will insurance pay for that? No, they won't. Why not? Because the lack of compliance with the requirements of Design Standards thus far by the Scottish Government preclude that.
If 2 and 3 are blamed, then the cost of that will cause both companies to cease to exist. That will cause problems within the legal profession and construction industries including to the clients of both companies and, at the end of it all, the Scottish Government will still have to pay for a new school.
Hence, and I have been saying this for years now, this is the Scottish Government's problem and it is for them to own it and solve it for everyone. Is Shona Robison the best person to do that? Perhaps not and that is why it is not getting done.
This decision is going to cost the Scottish Government money. The Dutch engineer who responded and who was part of the ASCE members' 2017 submission stated: "you can try this but sooner or later you are going to have to go the the final costly solution". (which is a school built from new on another site). By the way, Dutch engineers tend to understand this problem better than anyone.
I have tried to help the Scottish Government over the years but they are so secretive, dishonest and arrogant that they cannot be helped.
I have spoken about the submission from experts at the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) many times now and yet in any functioning governmental environment, I would only have had to speak about it, and submit it, once.
ReplyDeleteAfter that, a proper investigation would take place involving the Institution of Civil Engineers and Buro Happold and results of that would be made publicly available so that everyone who uses this building every day can understand what has gone wrong and whether or not it can be fixed.
The submission is my property and the opinions belong to the experts themselves. In other words, it doesn't belong to the Scottish Government, or to Harper Macleod, or anyone else. It was handed to them in 2017 and I expected them to read it, understand it and act upon it and they have not done that.
It may help to push us all over the finishing line if this submission was to be distributed to all interested parties? The only person you need ask is myself and I am clearly relaxed about everyone who has an interest in this school having access to this information. After all, it was produced for them and to alert them and warn them, it wasn't produced for anyone else.
If there are any questions arising from the submission, I am available to answer them and I'm sure the experts would make themselves available to answer them too. Just ask the questions and the answers will be delivered. That's the way it works and it is essential for all of you to understand that engineering problems are not to be kept secret. That is in fact how engineering disasters happen.
Alternatively, the Institution of Civil Engineers, Buro Happold and Scottish Building Standards, who already have this submission, will I am sure be willing to provide guidance for all of you.
Experts from the ASCE contributed to the Piper Alpha Inquiry and the Challenger Space Disaster Inquiry and when they do that, when they elect to make a contribution in this way, it is best to listen to their guidance and act upon it. The fact that the Scottish Government is not doing that, I find inexplicable really.
I hope that Shona Robison is given the opportunity to read this. 7 or 8-weeks to deliberate upon a matter like this is really not acceptable and so perhaps this would be best delegated to her Building Standards team now, before it is too late?
This is not a political decision to be taken by those at Holyrood; it is an engineering decision to be taken by Scottish Building Standards and that is what they are there for. They will decide within a day or two.
George - The undernoted is from 23/12/19 and I understand that you knew this chap? He wasn't going to do anything, was he? Not only that, but he was intent on preventing others from getting involved and getting to the truth. The perfect antithesis of a public lawyer then.
ReplyDeleteThanks to us, Jackie Baillie and "Protect", it looks as if this case has finally been solved. I will be expecting an apology to be issued to me by the Owner of this law-firm. Ordinary members of the public have no understanding of the decline of the legal profession in Scotland over the last decade:
"I am not responding to anymore of your emails. Do not send any more. I dealt with your groundless complaint years ago.
Professor Robert Rennie"
Rennie was a major scumbag, pity he is now dead, he should have his reputation trashed publicly.
DeleteProfessor Rennie's law-firm was appointed to the the Board of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) in 2014, reappointed in 2018 and reappointed again last year.
DeleteThis school was started in 2014 and the initial complaint to Professor Rennie's firm was made then.
Because his law-firm are an integral part of the SLCC, that means that any complaint about Professor Rennie would be adjudicated, at least in part, by his own law-firm.
The complaint that I made about him concerned his compliance with the lawyers' ethical code. Such a complaint should be sent by the SLCC to the Law Society of Scotland, but that was never done. When I tried to do it myself they said: "We don't have time for this."
Hence, it's not only Professor Rennie that's at fault here and you have to ask yourself if this profession is really fit for purpose nowadays.
Hopefully, this will be resolved to an outcome within the next few days.
ReplyDeleteLet me set-out what has to happen to allow that to occur. Two letters are required:
Letter 1 one is from Shona Robison to Jackie Baillie and that letter will set-out the outcome which the Scottish Government will offer me.
Letter 2 is from Scotland's Head of Building Standards Stephen Garvin and that letter will be addressed to Aberdeen City Council and it will essentially set-out whether or not the school is compliant with Design Standard EC7 and, if it is not compliant, then it is not safe. The Council will then inform the EIS of that decision.
Letter 2 is complex and requires guidance from Buro Happold.
Letter 1 is not complex and it can be issued now.
So, all that we are waiting for is letter 1.
Allow me to clarify one point, regarding letter 2:
ReplyDeleteThe decision that the school is safe was taken by Scotland's Head of Building Standards, Bill Dodds. After our meeting on 17/8/16, he carried-out a review of the as-built design and decided it was safe. Hence, it was the Scottish Government's decision, not Aberdeen City Council's decision.
On 23/5/19 I had another meeting with Scotland's current Head of Building Standards, Stephen Garvin. At the end of the meeting, he agreed to review the as-built design again and return to me with an outcome, but he never did that.
Hence, a stasis has existed for the past four years while I, and presumably the rest of us, wait on Mr Garvin's decision and that's really not acceptable, is it. His silence on the matter gives the impression that the school is safe but if it is not safe, then accountability will fall to him and I explained that to him at the time.
I have the minutes of that meeting. I will not post them up here, but it is the as-built design review by Stephen Garvin that the EIS and the Council should be seeking just now. If they want the minutes, then Jackie Baillie has them and they were sent-out to her on the day of the meeting.
Buro Happold are a reputable engineering firm and they will provide guidance of course. In the end though, the decisions have to be made by those in authority and that is Shona Robison for letter 1, and Stephen Garvin for letter 2.
Letter 1 is comparatively simple and, as I've said half a dozen times now, I fail to understand why we are still waiting. That's 8-weeks now.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteCan we have the meeting this Friday, please? That will be in excess of 8-weeks I have waited.
It is accepted that it is in the Deputy First Minister's gift and not yours, but she ought to pay respect to the position I have taken over the years?
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteThe reason that whistle-blowers should hand-over to others very, very quickly is because it is understood that they suffer disproportionately, they shouldn't have to and so putting a strict time limit on their involvement addresses that.
In the exemplar case I sent you from KSA four and a half years ago, the whistle-blower was released in less than 3-weeks. Engineering experts took over, the structure was fixed and then the parliamentarians exchanged letters. That is the accepted worldwide protocol that engineers follow automatically. We have a different protocol in Scotland where we must all rely upon letters to and from the Deputy First Minister and God knows how that is supposed to work.
Frankly, I am loathe to wait any longer than Friday and so can you let the Deputy First Minister know that, please. That is all I am asking you to do.
George - you may remember "JDI" or "Just Do It". It was the trademark of Nike for decades.
ReplyDeleteThat's the position we're in just now. All excuses are gone.
Surely we're not all waiting on Shona Robison? For 8 feckin weeks?
"Dragons flying in an alien world" represents the menacing spirit of Professor Robert Rennie...or is it someone else?
While I'm waiting, I've been reading through some of Robin McAlpine's articles and yesterday's caught my attention. He was writing about the Ferguson ferries fiasco and why it is that engineering disasters have now been normalized in Scotland and we are being conditioned to accept them. This is not complex engineering that has gone slightly wrong, this is hum-drum engineering that anyone in the world can do that, here in Scotland, has been allowed to go disastrously wrong while everyone is sleeping and ignoring it and no-one is fixing it:
ReplyDelete"Is it really so naïve of me to wonder why someone who knows what they are doing can’t just take a close look and, you know, fix whatever is wrong?
Or to put it another way, if they can’t, if we can’t either find someone in Scotland that knows how a boat works and is empowered to sort this out or at the very least attract such a person from somewhere else, what is wrong with us?"
Sounds like the case of this school, doesn't it. "Normalized Failure" is normalized in Scotland, it is not normalized anywhere else and that is a problem because it means that Holyrood's job, as they see it anyway, has become that of managing this decline and putting a PR spin on it.
I'll continue waiting on Shona Robison.
The SNP is certainly between a rock and a hard place, but it is compounded by the fact, they are stupid and small people.
ReplyDeleteLawyers should be completely separate from the SNP and, when they are not, the public is not protected. So, it's the lawyers that are the problem too. I cannot think of anyone less suitable to deliberate upon complex engineering that Shona Robison, but that is what we are all waiting on. Prior to Shona Robison it was John Swinney, then Shirley-Anne Sommerville and Professor Rennie. Get the picture? It's what Robin McAlpine was complaining about and it's the reason why Scotland is now so bad at engineering. It's interference by parliamentarians and lawyers that have caused this.
ReplyDeleteThis is Robin McAlpine's opinion: https://robinmcalpine.org/we-cant-afford-to-normalise-failure/
ReplyDeleteHe knows that Scotland was always the home of engineering and that something has gone wrong in the past 10-years. He can't identify what the problem is, but he knows that something isn't right.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteCan you explain to the Deputy First Minister that I should not be kept waiting any longer? As set-out below, I should be released as her first priority and that takes days, not months.
I have asked to be released tomorrow and so can you ensure that she understands that please.
This is not complex and it gets done in just about every other country in the world as a matter of routine government business.
We live in an age where the worst people get elected to public office, your case is one example of many, sadly, they would rather do nothing than do the public good.
DeleteYou may remember Bob? He told me two things which I have remembered:
ReplyDelete1) Jackie Baillie needs to be on the right side of the argument in the closing stages.
2) Who will be blamed? My expectation is that Bruce Caldow will be blamed.
It's then a question of who pays the £30m? If only Bruce had listened. It's been missed opportunity after missed opportunity hasn't it.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI tried to arrange a closing meeting with you last Friday and I tried again for today and you have not responded. Can you give me a date and time for this meeting, please?
My personal situation has been caused by the dishonest conduct of Jonathan Moore who is an employee of the Scottish Government and so it is my MSP's role to obtain a settlement for me and I presume that it is accepted? I am presently asking why I am being kept waiting?
We received a letter from the previous Deputy First Minister, John Swinney on 23rd December 2017 and that was 4-weeks after we submitted a file of evidence from the experts at American Society of Civil Engineers to him. The present Deputy First Minister, Shona Robison has the same evidence and I asked why we have waited for in excess of 8-weeks for her to reconsider and respond to it and you have not answered. I expect her to agree that this information casts considerable doubt on the safety and future viability of this building. That is what the experts believe, but the final decision is for her.
The Scottish Government is the same as any other government and public service rules apply. Please respond today as I am sick and tired of this now.
George - they are trying to blame the contractor for this at the moment and I wish them the best of luck with that.
ReplyDeleteThose I would hold responsible are Bruce Caldow and Jonathan Moore. Both are perfectly putrid and are the end products of twenty years of Holyrood. If you cast your mind back several months ago though, I explained that the instruction to ignore the whistle-blower was made by a wee woman at Aberdeen City Council. Since the of course, the best lawyers from Scotland and the best engineers from around the world have all been called upon to try and pull this needless disaster back from the gates of hell. Have they succeeded? It doesn't look like they have, does it.
It just shows you the immense damage that can be done when one wee women crashes through the glass ceiling and starts making decisions that are, in most countries in the world, made by experts.
someone has to carry the can, bit like the SNP scandal with police scotland tramping all over the place, no one wants to be around when the music stops.
DeleteDear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteWe are just going round in circles here, aren't we.
I presume that Buro Happold have now agreed that my advice and that of the other engineering experts is correct? In which case I imagine there may be a lot of angry people asking why it has been ignored for so long?
I reported this to Harper MacLeod as a whistle-blower in September 2014 and my instruction to them was clear. I expected them to follow it but they didn't and as a result of that the Scottish Government is left with an unsafe school and I am time-barred by the legal profession and so what you are advising is incorrect.
All aspects of this case are for the Scottish Government to resolve and that is what governments are for. I was expecting an outcome to be put in front of me last Friday and the again today. That is the only question that I am currently asking and so please tell me when the meeting is taking place?
I am expecting payment to myself and two other parties and a job to be provided and I have been asking you to organize this for months now.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteUndernoted is the final Email I received on 23/12/19 from Harper MacLeod's Professor Robert Rennie. You are recommending I go back to them? Are you serious?
"I am not responding to anymore of your emails. Do not send any more. I dealt with your groundless complaint years ago."
Professor Robert Rennie
Consultant
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteWould it be acceptable if Mr McAteer from Beltrami negotiated this on my behalf? I presume that would be acceptable to you? He understands the complexities of this case and I am trying to move this to an outcome by making this suggestion.
The initial contact with Mr McAteer should be by the Scottish Government. I haven't spoken to him since early December and so can that be done today? He will respond professionally and he just needs clear instruction, by the Scottish Government, on what they want him to do.
That means of course that the meeting will be with Mr McAteer instead of with yourself. Can I leave that with you and Shona Robison to organize? Ask Mr McAteer to contact me, please.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI cannot instruct a solicitor because I am "time-barred" and Protect explained that several months ago. Mr McAteer understands the gravity of the situation better than any other lawyer and, as I said earlier, I am satisfied that he will deal with it urgently and professionally.
So, he can only be instructed by the Scottish Government and please accept that as a fact. Can you therefore ask the Deputy First Minister to instruct him please?
We can then leave it to Mr McAteer to contact me. Can you please confirm your agreement by return Email and ensure that Mr McAteer is contacted today?
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, there are two options which are open to you:
1) You agree an outcome for me with the Deputy First Minister.
2) The Deputy First Minister instructs Mr McAteer to agree an outcome with me.
Either way, the Scottish Government is responsible for providing whatever is agreed.
8-weeks ago, either would have been acceptable and going with option 1 was your idea. However, I have now elected to proceed with option 2 and I have asked you to ensure that contact is made with Mr McAteer as he will require instruction on what the Scottish Government wants him to do and clarification on who will pay him for his time.
I do not know whether you intend responding again later today, sometimes you do and at other times you don't, but this is the way it stands and we should drop this: "not me....do it yourself" routine because it is disingenuous and if this represents the combined effort of the Deputy First Minister and the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party over the past 8-weeks, then it represents nothing; it represents total failure.
As I explained earlier, I have not contacted Mr McAteer but I will be expecting him to either call me, or Email me within the next few days. Is that agreed?
George - Jackie didn't contact me again yesterday and so the above sets-out the current position. As soon as the Scottish Government contacts Mr McAteer, he will contact me. I will ask for it to be concluded on Friday and he will get it done. "JDI - Just Do It" - remember?
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic that we have two lawyers here: Professor Rennie who was the "Bungalow Bill" Glasgow lawyer and Mr McAteer who is the "Tenement Tom" Glasgow lawyer. You would expect Bungalow Bill to be the most trusted of the two, wouldn't you? But, that's obviously not the case and the cheap foundations he established at his law firm (explained in his own words above) are being washed as quickly as the foundations under this school.
It will be interesting to see how your contribution is viewed. This is a whistle-blowing case that was solved thanks to a blogger. At least it will be viewed by a sensible, pragmatic lawyer this time who is grounded in reality.
The Deputy First Minister is in a corner. She either agrees with me and the public reaction to that will be entirely negative, or she disagrees with me and with the rest of world engineering and the public reaction to that will be even worse. Hence the delay and I'm sure Jackie must realise that?
Why we in Scotland have folk like Shona Robison, John Swinney and Shirley-Anne Somerville deciding upon complex engineering, and taking years to do it, is probably the true cause of many of our problems. Robin McAlpine alludes to the same problem above and we really need to sweep these folk out of our way, very, very quickly, and get back to the way it was done before Holyrood.
Can you believe that with arguably one of the best performing MSP's, this has taken nearly 9-years to conclude? So, Holyrood isn't working, is it? Nothing gets done; they all think if they ignore something for long enough, it will go away and it doesn't. It just keeps on getting worse.
George - I noticed that Robin McAlpine's key question with regards to the Ferguson ferries and Holyrood's role in their procurement was: "If we don't have Scottish engineers who can do this, why can we not just ask some overseas engineers what are we doing wrong and what do we need to do to improve this?"
ReplyDeleteI can answer that question for him. I tried that, as you know, in 2017 so, a long time ago. What they say at Holyrood when presented with this type of expert advice is: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you." and that's it; subject closed. Every MSP says the same thing, word for word, as if they have all been told what to say.
This is the sort of statement that means nothing and doesn't belong in engineering. Who doesn't agree with me? Give me some names, please? What, specifically, don't they agree with?
That's why it is essential to keep parliamentarians, and lawyers like Professor Rennie, as far away from engineering as possible. As I said earlier in the week, Professor Rennie didn't own the law-firm, he only worked there and dealt with customer complaints, but his presence set the ethical standard and that ethical standard has resulted in this grave outcome.
So, Robin McAlpine is correct and bang on the money really. We should be asking overseas experts. We just shouldn't be involving
....anyone at Holyrood. Don't involve any of them, or any of their lawyers. They are all so compromised by vested interests that they will end-up getting people killed.
DeleteI have asked Jackie Baillie to bring this to a final outcome for me this coming Friday. I have offered to meet with either Jackie Baillie herself, or with a lawyer who is instructed by the Scottish Government to get this resolved to an outcome. Either will be acceptable to me.
DeleteI don't think that Jackie wants to do it in which case it will be with a lawyer. I suggested a lawyer who was involved in the Piper Alpha Inquiry. He will therefore understand that when expert engineers recommend that you do something and you don't do it, or if you say that you're too busy to do it, a number of people can easily be killed as a result and it can happen suddenly.
I have put together a chronology of the main events below. It probably serves to makes us all realize what a delinquent government we have and what a delinquent legal profession we have in Scotland just now:
1. 15/8/14 - I told Ogilvie Construction: "A mistake has been made here...we will need to fix this, otherwise this design is never going to work". That resulted in me being terminated.
ReplyDelete2. 13/9/14 - I told Harper MacLeod: "Ogilvie Construction have made a mistake...they have changed the design and the new design will not work...get it checked by experts please before it's too late". They didn't get it checked by experts and hence this disaster has unfolded.
3. 18/5/15 - Received an Email from Harper MacLeod stating: "Whether or not you in fact made the disclosures given that Ogilvie Construction does not appear to accept that you made any such disclosure". So, evidently, Harper MacLeod had done nothing to investigate, despite me having instructed and paid them. The school is now built and it is too late to do anything.
4. 17/8/16 - I met with the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore and explained to him that a geotechnical failure had occurred and that it was incumbent upon the Scottish Government to comply with law and order a geotechnical investigation to be carried out straight away. He elected to carry-out a visual inspection report instead.
5. 30/9/16 - Received a letter from Jonathan Moore which said:
"Buro Happold has confirmed with us that they are satisfied with the integrity of the original design".
6. 1/10/16 - I replied to Jonathan Moore saying: "I accept that the original design is correct, it is the Ogilvie Construction's alteration to that design that I am questioning. Can you answer that question, please".
7. 7/10/16 - Jonathan Moore responded: "I can assure you that we have spent a great deal of time considering and investigating and that we have reached a conclusion that you neither like nor accept does not mean that we have dismissed your concerns or not taken them seriously." So, again he refused to answer the question that I asked.
8. 17/11/17 - I decided to consult with world expert engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers and they all agreed with me and ergo disagreed with Jonathan Moore. I received comment and opinion from more than 40No experts and so there was no doubt that I had been vindicated.
9. 23/12/17 - Received a letter from John Swinney which stated: "This information from the ASCE is not new information and we consider this case is now closed".
ReplyDelete10. 6/11/18 - Received a letter from Fraser Innes of Hub which stated: "We have discussed this matter with the Project Team and will not provide any further information".
11. 23/5/19 - Attended a meeting with Scotland's Head of Building Standards, Stephen Garvin. He wasn't interested.
12. 23/12/19 - Received an Email from Professor Rennie of Harper MacLeod which stated: "I dealt with your groundless complaint years ago".
13. 12/6/21 - I reported Jonathan Moore to the Institution of Civil Engineers for unprofessional conduct in his management of this case. The Institution of Civil Engineers responded that producing a visual inspection report was all that Jonathan Moore was obligated to do.
14. I considered that finding to be unfair and so too did Protect. We both complained to the Institution of Civil Engineers about it but they did nothing.
15. 30/11/22 - Protect sent an Email to Jackie Baillie which stated: "The issue, as I understand it, is that there is a prima-facie case of significant risk to the public and those in charge appear to be relying on Visual Inspection Reports as a rebuttal - but Visual Inspection Reports have been previously established as inappropriate and inadequate in these circumstances".
16. 24/4/23 - I sent a full synopsis of the design change which was carried out by Ogilvie Construction direct to Buro Happold's Global Head of Risk and Compliance. That way, I know that she has been given the full information that has already been reviewed by their colleagues at the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Buro Happold are world leading engineers and they are acutely aware that the opinion they present now must be very, very clear and I presume that they have now done that and that we now have an answer. What that means for the school and for those who use it every day is for the EIS to take forward with Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government.
ReplyDeleteAs I have said, I expect to be released at a closing meeting on Friday with a payment, with a payment for George Laird and Protect, and with a job and I say that because we have protected the public interest and those above, who have completely failed to protect the public interest.
I recall Jackie Baillie standing-up at Holyrood to complain that the circumstances which brought about the Cameron House fire, which claimed two lives, should never occur again in Scotland. She was in tears when she did that and so it was no-doubt sincere. Is she unaware that the risks at Brimmond School are substantially higher than they ever were at Cameron House? Perhaps someone should explain this to her? I have tried, but she refuses to listen.
So, this is how whistle-blowers are treated in Scotland by the Scottish Government. What do we do to prevent this from happening again because what has happened here is disgraceful, isn't it. There was no reason for this to occur.
First of all, I would remove John Swinney and Harper MacLeod from the public realm.
Secondly, the opinions of our professional institutions, specifically the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Law Society of Scotland, have had to be corrected by both the American Society of Civil Engineers and by Protect. What do these institutions propose to do to restore public confidence in the output of the work of their professions because this has been a scandalous failure, hasn't it?
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI want to have this finished on or before Friday 12th May, please.
I was asked to provide a chronology of events from when I first made the protected disclosure up to the present day and I did that earlier and posted it up on George Laird's website so that it is accessible to those who may want to read it.
The last item on the chronology, item 16, requires an engineering judgement call to be made by the experts at Buro Happold and I will either be proven right or wrong and it is pretty much a slam-dunk that I am going to be proven right.
All responsibility then passes to the EIS, Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government. You and I do not require to know the detail of that judgement, we only require to know whether I have been right or wrong and Ms Winfield of Buro Happold only requires two-weeks to make that judgement and two-weeks have elapsed.
Can I suggest again that Ms Robison of the Scottish Government just hands this over to Mr McAteer tomorrow and I meet him on Friday for the outcome meeting? I say that because the chances of Mr McAteer sorting this-out by Friday are good and the chances of Ms Robison doing it are not good and I think it is time to call-in the experts now.
Ms Raphael of Protect has only been involved in this case for the past few months and prior to that it was Bob Matheson. As I make clear below Protect and George Laird have achieved far more, without being paid, than the Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council, Hub, Harper MacLeod, Scottish Building Standards, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Law Society of Scotland, combined, have achieved and, on reflection, I find the lack of honesty demonstrated by all of these parties to be shameful. I am therefore requesting that a substantial payment be made to both Protect and to George Laird and that is agreed on Friday.
For clarity, I am asking that an instruction be given to Mr McAteer tomorrow by the Scottish Government to have my case concluded on or before Friday. Once that is done, I will correspond confidentially with Mr McAteer for the rest of this week and no-one else will be copied-in.
Can you ensure that this is done and contact me tomorrow to confirm, please? After that, I will liaise only with Mr McAteer.
I received a reply from Jackie Baillie last night saying that she was out of the country and that she would respond when she got back.
ReplyDeleteI only sent this to Jackie and Protect and copied it up here and so there are a number of different parties that are involved and will need to see it and comment on it. I presume that is what is taking the time.
As an engineer I've seen a number of things go-wrong and, wherever you are, mistakes happen but I've never seen anything like this before. It has been a systemic cover-up and how that is viewed by investigating authorities is the question that I have.
I'm still expecting to attend an outcome meeting on Friday and there is no reason for that meeting not to take place.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteFriday's meeting can go-ahead. Please ensure that it is organized today and that I am informed. Whether or not you wish to attend is for you to decide.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteThe meeting on Friday is to agree my outcome and the agenda for the meeting is as follows:
1. Payment to myself.
2. Job for myself.
3. Payments to Mr Laird, and to Protect.
The only lawyer who understands the gravity of the present situation is Mr McAteer from Beltrami and so the meeting should take place with him, in his office. The meeting should last for approximately 1-hour.
I have made no effort to contact Mr McAteer as that is the Scottish Government's responsibility. I have asked you to do that many times and once it has been done, he will contact me and set-up the meeting. So far, nothing has been arranged and that is very, very disappointing.
Can I suggest that the Scottish Government contacts Mr McAteer now and then stands back and leaves this to him?
"I am currently out of the country..." I hate to say this but I'm sure I spotted Jackie Baillie sitting in her usual chair at Holyrood this afternoon.
ReplyDeleteJDDI - means Just Don't Do It and that would be my advice to any would-be whistle-blowers. Two things have fucked this up:
ReplyDelete1. The lack of support from the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Law Society of Scotland. "We're too busy". If it hadn't been for the American Society of Civil Engineers and Protect, where would we all be?
2. It doesn't matter how much work you personally put into it, you can only move at the speed your MSP moves at which, in my case, is one letter every 18-months to 2-years. Hence, what should be over in less than 8-weeks, takes almost 9-years.
We're pretty much at the end now, George. It always was a slam-dunk. We've been let down by vested interests.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteYou sent me the trailing Email on 7/1/23, which is more than 4-months ago and, as I understand it, this is all that requires to be done by the Scottish Government to bring this to an outcome.
Once Mr McAteer is contacted, he will contact me to arrange the meeting on Friday, the outcome will be agreed and we both, together with Protect, will be finished.
Can you explain to me what the problem is and why I am being kept waiting like this? This should have been done within a day, surely?
"Dear Stephen
Many thanks for this further email. As you know I remain happy to assist but I have not had recent contact with Mr McAteer."
George - I hope to be able to give you you're website back soon. By the way, I heard Graham Simpson ask Neil Grey at Holyrood what they plan to do with Fergusons at Port Glasgow. Grey answered that they plan to give it back to the private sector as soon as possible.
ReplyDeleteThat might be easier said than done after Holyrood has trashed the reputation of the yard over the past few years. Have any expert engineers told Holyrood how to build ferries properly? I'm sure they have. I'm equally sure they have been told: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you". In engineering, that's precisely how you rack-up large prolongation costs.
I haven't heard a peep from Jackie today but I'm still expecting Friday's meeting to go-ahead.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteWhen clients make building safety decisions for themselves, as they did at the Cameron House fire, then accidents happen and people can be killed. Brimmond School is more dangerous than Cameron House ever was and that is a fact.
I understand the Deputy First Minister now has Buro Happold's opinion. So, her decision should be made and be supported by the expert advice of Buro Happold. That is all that anyone is waiting for.
I must have sent you ASCE Ethics Case Study 4 about twenty times over the years? It explains the legal situation should a collapse occur due to an unauthorized change to a building design. When everyone gives the impression that it is safe when it is not safe. That is what you are doing.
Please deal with this immediately as it is of the utmost importance. Send this chain of Emails to Mr McAteer please. All that he needs is contained here and he will recommend an outcome tomorrow.
You have had in excess of 7-years to deal with this and I am sick and tired of all of the excuses. I understand that you were in Rutherglen yesterday and so kindly stop treating the public like fools.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteI have not contacted you for a number of weeks, but it may be worth appraising you all of the position with respect to my personal situation.
The chronology of events, which is the first in this chain of Emails, shows that we are currently waiting for Buro Happold's guidance which will determine what has to be done in order to fix the school. I presume that has now been delivered?
I am a whistle-blower and I wish to end my involvement in this case, tomorrow. I have offered to meet with a senior Glasgow lawyer, Mr McAteer, who worked on the Piper Alpha Inquiry and who understands of this case very well. It is essential for me to reach an outcome which will end my involvement and I can leave it to the rest of you to take this forward from here.
I am currently trying to explain to Ms Baillie that the lawyer should be instructed to work on my behalf by the Scottish Government and not by myself, as I am time-barred and so I cannot instruct a lawyer.
Can I presume that you are all in agreement with that premise? That all instructions should be issued by the Scottish Government? It does not appear to me to be unduly complex but, like everything else to do with this case, it just never seems to reach a terminus.
What I have asked Ms Baillie to do is to ensure that Mr McAteer contacts me today, to arrange a meeting for tomorrow. Does anyone have any objections to that?
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI am not asking you to do it; I am asking the Scottish Government to do it and I have made that abundantly clear.
I am asking you to make sure that it is done today, so that the meeting takes place tomorrow.
Mr McAteer will contact me today, as soon as he receives the Scottish Government instruction.
George - I am not posting up anything that Jackie Baillie sends me but, I have to say, she is beginning to sound like Professor Rennie. "I am not responding to any more of your Emails. Don't send any more". Rennie said that, but Jackie is sounding pretty frantic too at the moment.
ReplyDeleteDear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI have been requesting the meeting since December last year and it can only be called, by the lawyer in question, once he receives instruction to do so, by the Scottish Government. Not by you personally; by the Scottish Government. So far, he has not received this instruction and the purpose of my many Emails to you have been to ask why this is the case.
I trust that all of you have viewed the chronology at the start of this Email chain and I wonder if any of you can really look upon this case with anything other than real concern as to why something that was so clearly explained from the beginning can take this long to conclude. All of you are professionals and, really, this shouldn't happen, should it?
The safety of this building and the land surrounding it is not down to a personal decision made by the Deputy First Minister and it can only be authoritatively judged by the experts at Buro Happold. How you wish to take that forward from here is a decision for all of you, as a collective group, to make and I am not involved in that and neither, by the way, are you.
You appear not to have asked the Scottish Government to instruct tomorrow's meeting and this meeting is of the utmost importance to me. Can someone else interject at this point and request the meeting is instructed? Mr O'Hara for example? All it requires is a telephone call to Mr McAteer, from the Scottish Government and then Mr McAteer will contact me.
This is not the way whistle-blowers are treated, worldwide, and I think that some really profound questions ought to be asked by the public that you owe a duty to protect.
All that I require is a meeting to take place tomorrow with Mr McAteer. Can either Ms Baillie, or Mr O'Hara, organize that with the Scottish Government and can either of you inform me by return Email that you have done that?
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteIf you take a look at item 8 from the chronology trailing; that is when the last engineering experts provided their guidance on the safety of the building and the land surrounding it and they concluded that there were significant problems. Item 8 explains that the last Deputy First Minister's decision was to immediately ignore their advice and so nothing has ever been done.
Whoever is advising you on engineering will explain whether life safety has been put needlessly at risk by this decision, but my opinion has always been that it has.
What you have been asking me to accept for the past 9-weeks is that, this time around, the experts from Buro Happold provide their expert guidance, which will no doubt be exactly the same as before, and the current Deputy First Minister is somehow allowed to ignore it, that decision is for her, and everyone continues not to communicate and to do nothing. Think about that, please. That is why I have been sending repeated Emails. We are, in the end, taking about life safety here.
It may be time for the Institution of Civil Engineers to explain to all of you how the process of authoritative design review works and it has nothing to do with whoever is Deputy First Minister. I have tried many, many times over the years to explain this to you and it is futile. Advice from the UK's accepted authority is perhaps what is required just now and I presume that would be acceptable to everyone?
I am still waiting for a call from Mr McAteer. I presume that is being organized now?
Dear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteI address this to you because Jackie Baillie is currently waiting on a letter from the Deputy First Minister. She has been waiting for more than 2-months already, no-one knows what the letter may say and Jackie advised yesterday that the Deputy First Minister may in fact elect not to issue a letter to me. It is therefore pointless to wait any longer on a letter that will, in all likelihood, never arrive.
This is very clearly not the way that whistle-blowing, involving life-safety, is supposed to work. So, my suggestion is that we leave this entirely with the correct authorities from Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers so that the proper investigation into the safety of the school is carried-out by them. They were each copied in to all of today's Emails and so they now have all the information they need and they will respond very, very quickly.
All that I am interested in now, is meeting Mr McAteer and I explained that exhaustively earlier today. Mr McAteer would be working for the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government would be instructing him to reach an agreed outcome with me. This meeting can be arranged tomorrow morning and Mr McAteer will respond instantly.
Jackie Baillie is currently refusing and so can you request that your colleagues at Holyrood call Mr McAteer, please? It is important that I bring to a close this continuing degradation of my life and my family's life, which is another thing that Jackie Baillie fails to appreciate.
George - We'll see what Brendan O'Hara manages to do and if Mr McAteer calls tomorrow I'll let you know.
ReplyDeleteThis was all caused by Aberdeen City Council which, back in 2014, was run by the Labour Party. Hence Jackie Baillie's really not on my side. I think you had that worked-out years ago?
Anyway, the chronology was sent-out to everyone today. I posted it up here last Sunday and it is truly shameful. It appears to have done more than anything to make them realize that they are all in trouble.
I am confident now that Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers will respond because if an accident occurs, it could well be seen as criminal negligence if they do not respond. What will that response amount to? Well, they may be able to fix the school, but they may not. It will be either one, or the other.
The school was checked by 4No different UK engineering consultants, which included Buro Happold, in March 2018 for Hub and Aberdeen City Council. Hence, they all have the answer already.
ReplyDeleteDear Brendan,
ReplyDeleteDesign reviews of the as-built foundation design of Brimmond School were carried-out in March 2018 by engineering consultants Buro Happold, Arup, WSP and Cundell. Foundation specialists Van Elle also contributed a design review.
These were not visual inspection reports by structural engineers, these were proper design reviews carried-out over several weeks by geotechnical experts and this crucial information is held by Charlie Penman of Aberdeen City Council and Angeline Robertson of Hub. The Council leader at that time was Jenny Laing.
They were produced only a few months after I submitted information from the experts at the American Society of Civil Engineers and it was no doubt in response to that. Jackie Baillie has the impression that the decision is now in the gift of the Deputy First Minister, but that is not the case. She will simply request the information is provided to her, by the Council, she will consider it and come to a judgement, with the guidance of Scottish Building Standards of course, and that will be the end of the matter.
There is a strong public interest imperative in pursuing an answer on this and so can you take this forward with your colleagues at Holyrood? As I pointed-out to Jackie Baillie yesterday, this is whistle-blowing and reports like this one should really be investigated quickly and properly and what I am saying to you is that the answer can be provided now; the information you need is all there and that has been so since March 2018.
My view has always been that the fault originated at the Council and if the Council leaders that were in place in March 2014 have caused this design review information to be hidden from public scrutiny for this length of time, then the reaction to that will be entirely negative.
Finally, if you could speak to your colleagues at Holyrood this morning about getting an instruction out to Mr McAteer, that would be most helpful. As I explained yesterday, my intention is now to leave this with the rest of you to sort-out from here. The only thing I would say is if there is possible criminality involved, and there may be, then it would perhaps best be left entirely with the Council.
George - How does this end?
ReplyDeleteIn Alastair Campbell's experience of these cases, it ends when someone steps forward and say: "This has all been a misunderstanding". So, how do we do that?
The Scottish Government says: "Aberdeen City Council reviewed this as-built design in 2018, together with the flooding of the land and the sinking of the land, with 5No expert geotechnical consultants and found there was a problem which was caused by the way the school was built. The Council own the school and they reported to us that they would manage the problem, but that hasn't worked and the school will have to be fixed this summer".
There will be a few folk who are unhappy with this solution of course, and it's not the end of the story as many more questions will be asked, but for the Scottish Government it is probably as good as they are going to get.
As is the case the case, if unable to weasel out of it, someone has to be thrown to the wolves, if you think back to the Westminster expenses scandal. Only a handful got nabbed, and the number should have been much higher.
DeleteIdeally, someone who worked on it but is now dead is always good.
DeleteHaven't heard anything from anybody today George and so this goes-on for another week. Hopefully though, this will be the final week.
ReplyDelete"The wilderness years" mean that someone loses all authority all of a sudden and becomes a social outcast. It usually happens because someone is convicted of a crime or something like that.
In Scotland though, you go through a period of wilderness years because you are a whistle-blower. Not only that, but everyone thinks that they can threaten you and treat you generally like shite.
So, over the years I have had to prove Ogilvie Construction wrong, Buro Happold wrong, Scottish Building Standards wrong, Hub wrong, Aberdeen City Council wrong, John Swinney wrong, Shirley-Anne Somerville wrong, Jackie Baillie wrong, Jenny Laing wrong, Euan Couperwhite wrong, Professor Robert Rennie wrong, Bruce Caldow wrong, Jonathan Moore wrong, the Institution of Civil Engineers wrong, The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission wrong, the Law Society of Scotland wrong and I almost forget Nicola Sturgeon, I proved her form-filler and letter-writer, Matthew Rennie wrong too.
So, it's been a long exhausting process involving sending, I reckon, about 1200No Emails. The vested interests in Scotland play the long game by trying to bankrupt you.
I have had excellent support from the American Society of Civil Engineers, Protect and yourself.
My suggestion from earlier was that this should be blamed 100% on Jenny Laing, the erstwhile leader of Aberdeen City Council and that solution suits just about everyone.
I don't want to be unfair to Jackie Baillie, but she was never going to do anything. I don't know if that was for political reasons or whether she just wasn't interested but, whatever the reason, her contribution was nowhere near good enough.
I reckon we are almost finished. Mr McAteer is OK and he can be trusted and so I am all for leaving this with him and I would strongly recommend all of the others to do that too.
By the way, I ought to add the half-dozen of so structural engineers who provided visual inspection reports to Swinney and Somerville over the years - I've had to prove them wrong too.
ReplyDeleteSo, when Jackie Baillie says to me: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you". These are the folk that she is talking about. About 40No of them in total.
Are any of them honest professionals? If the question to that is "No" - then why are they still in a job?
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteLet me set-out what is required from all of you in order to bring this investigation to a timely close:
1. Buro Happold: The as-built design of the foundations and the effect of the 5m deep by 1m wide clay filled trench along the west perimeter of the site, on the stability of these foundations, to be reviewed by your geotechnical team. Comment on the causes of the flooding of the land and the sinking of the land. Send the review to Hub.
2. Hub: Send the review to Scotland's Head of Building Standards, Stephen Garvin.
3. Mr Garvin: Send the review to the Deputy First Minister.
4. Deputy First Minister: Send the review to Aberdeen City Council, the EIS and to Ms Baillie.
5. ICE: I presume that you are in agreement that the Visual Inspection Reports by your members will not be relied upon?
You are presently all waiting on a letter from the Deputy First Minister which will be a covering letter to an as-built design review (item 1 above) by Buro Happold. I'm sure that I do not have to explain to any of you the need to prevent structural deformation from occurring and so this letter should be issued by the Deputy First Minister with the utmost urgency.
Collapse investigations tend to identify one "missed opportunity" as the root cause and I attach Councillor Jenny Laing's letter of 19/7/18, which was in reply to Jackie Baillie's letter of 20/2/18. Her letter was issued in response to the opinions of ASCE members which all of you have reviewed by now. Ms Laing was asked to take advice from her own engineering experts and provide a response on behalf of the Council, but she failed to do that and that was a missed opportunity.
Accountability therefore appears to lie primarily with Ms Laing and it would only pass from Ms Laing if the opinions attributed to Buro Happold in her letter are true but if they are not true, and that appears the more likely scenario, then accountability remains with her and that is the premise that I have come to accept.
As I explained at the end of last week, the only response that I am waiting for is from Mr McAteer. He has not contacted me yet and he can only do that after he receives Ms Baillie's support and so that is what I am currently waiting for. The rest of you are waiting for the Deputy First Minister's letter. Is that the agreed position?
George - I reckon that this is where we leave it for now and I'll give it until the end of the week. You are due recognition for providing this website of course. Protect are due recognition for seeing the Holyrood bull-shit for what it was and cutting through it. What side of the fence is Jackie Baillie on, do you think?
ReplyDeleteDear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteMr McAteer hasn't contacted me, because no-one from the Scottish Government has instructed him on what they want him to do yet.
As the below Email explains, the safety of the building and the land surrounding it is a matter for the others to agree upon now as they wish, but I am expecting a closing meeting and so can you ensure that it is organized by your colleagues today, please.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteI understand that I have been proven correct and that means that every repetitive Email that I have issued since early 2014 has been correct.
Ergo, that means is that what you have sent back to me may be factually correct, but it has also been incomplete and misleading just as the numerous Visual Inspection Reports were incomplete and misleading and I presume that everyone accepts that now? This is definitely not the way engineering should be managed, is it?
Despite that, all of you remain in your jobs and are all still being paid. The situation that I have been explaining to Jackie Baillie for the past several years is that I am not in a job and so I am not being paid.
Whistle-blowing happens and my perception is that the public expect it to work. Scotland is no different to any other country in the world in that respect.
As I explained to Ms Baillie earlier today and I am now explaining to all of you, I require to have my situation resolved to an outcome on Friday 19th May and there appears to be no reason why that cannot occur.
If you are aware of any incumbrance preventing Friday's meeting from taking place, let Ms Baillie know please and she will let me know.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteEveryone should have 2-days notice of a meeting taking place and so can I be advised today, please.
I am not asking you to do anything. All that I require is that the Scottish Government instructs Mr McAteer and that I meet him on Friday.
I asked the others yesterday if there was any incumbrance preventing the meeting from taking place and no-one responded and so can you go ahead and do that for me please.
Mr McAteer will respond.
Dear Brendan and Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI am currently waiting on is a closing meeting to be arranged in Glasgow, on Friday 19th May.
I have been waiting on a letter from the Deputy First Minister for almost 10-weeks now and it looks less and less likely that the letter will ever materialize, let alone solve anything. My suggestion is that the EIS take this forward from here, if they wish, as the safety of the school is a matter for them.
The situation 9-years ago, when this started, was that I either kept quiet about something that I was aware of that wasn't right, or I reported it and so I reported it. The stasis that has prevented a solution being found and implemented has been caused by the other parties not engaging properly with me and I think we can all agree on that.
Therefore, can you both communicate and confirm to me that this meeting has been arranged?
George - I'm still waiting on Jackie Baillie. While I'm waiting I'll give you a quick run-down on what happened here:
ReplyDeleteIn 2014, when the school was built, Aberdeen City Council was run by the SNP. Then a Labour/Conservative alliance took over. You may remember that; it resulted in Kezia Dugdale expelling the ten or so Labour councillors who agreed to the alliance being thrown out of the party.
So, the initial mistake was made by the SNP Council and was covered-up by the Labour/Conservative Council. Which is the worst of the two crimes would you say? I would say the cover-up; what would you say?
The leader of the Council during the cover-up phase was Jenny Laing. She told be back in 2018: "I'm not answering any more of your questions" and Jackie Baillie added: "Ms Laing says that she is not answering any more of your questions". That's when I realized that something was wrong. Jenny Laing was not even a member of the Labour Party at that point but she was being listened to and obeyed by Jackie Baillie. The best engineers in the world, who all agreed with me were being ignored.
"All the President's Men", which was the film about Watergate, showed that it was not the initial crime that 40 or so were jailed for, it was the cover-up.
As you can see, I have asked by MP Brendan O'Hara to organize the meeting on my behalf now and so we will see what happens now. The only way out of this at the stage we are at now is to blame someone and that can only be Jenny Laing.
I'll leave a final word to the Institution of Civil Engineers who must be the worst performing professional institution in the UK. If they are scared of Jenny Laing and Jackie Baillie, they would be best nailing the doors shut and expiring. The American Society of Civil Engineers make them look entirely bent and that is no good to anyone.
Finally, what does this case tell us about the Labour Party? It hasn't changed at-all, has it.
Dear Ms Winfield and Mr Stewart,
ReplyDeleteI last Emailed you approximately 4-weeks ago to advise you that I would correspond only with Jackie Baillie MSP from that point onwards as my priority was to achieve a resolution and get back to work. I though that would be relatively easy, but it has proven not to be the case.
I have previously stated that I have no contention with Buro Happold. The problem just now is that Jackie Baillie is not responding. I have therefore asked my MP, Mr Brendan O'Hara to lend a hand in these final stages and I copy this Email also to him.
Two letters are attached. The first letter is from Jackie Baillie to Councillor Laing of Aberdeen City Council. The second letter is Councillor Laing's reply, which was issued almost 6-months later, to Jackie Baillie. There have been many missed opportunities to identify and fix this building and had the engineer in question, Peter Fraser from Ramsay and Chalmers, responded ethically at the time then the problem would have been avoided. Sadly, that never happened.
This is the first of the Visual Inspection Reports and it set the precedent for the others to follow. This would not be accepted elsewhere in the world, and there are professional and legal reasons for that, but it was and is somehow accepted here.
The opinion of Peter Fraser, who is not an expert, was subsequently outnumbered 40:1 by experts from the ASCE. But, as you can see, Ms Laing still reverts only to his opinion because it is the only one that supports her decision. His opinion was issued after Jenny Laing's decision was made and its only purpose was to support that decision. There is nothing wrong with that if his opinion is correct, but if it is proven not to be correct then that implies reckless certification has taken place and that would be in breach of criminal law. You, have examined Peter Fraser's opinion and the ASCE opinions and are authorized to adjudicate and so what do you think? This is the only question that really needs to be answered at this stage, isn't it.
Councillor Laing goes on to imply that Buro Happold have accepted the flooding of the land and the sinking of the land. If you didn't say that, and I presume that you didn't, then Councillor Laing has effectively "self-certified" the school as safe and has used the name of your company to support her decision and that is something that I presume your company will not allow her to do. She can use the name of Ramsay and Chalmers and their Visual Inspection Report allows her to do that, but she cannot use your name.
No-one regrets doing this more than I, but when Peter Fraser's opinion, and your opinion as implied by Ms Laing, is set against the expert opinions we have from the ASCE, any member of the public would understand the difference in honesty straight away and I am asking you to do the same. This situation has been underpinned from the very beginning by delinquency in the engineering profession and the public in Scotland is being let down by it and will react negatively towards it. I am not accusing Buro Happold of delinquency for a moment, but that is the way it may look to the public eye.
Dear Jackie and Brendan,
Ms Winfield and Mr Stewart will be able to advise you if what I set-out above is correct. I believe that it is correct in which case please arrange tomorrow's meeting as I do not anticipate suffering any more unemployment due to this case. Please let this be the final Email that I have to write on this subject.