On the 11th of June, SNP MSP Nicola Sturgeon was interviewed by police; she was in fact arrested, not interviewed as a witness but arrested as a suspect. Sturgeon’s arrest wasn’t unusual, already her husband, Peter Murrell was arrested, followed by Colin Beattie, the SNP Treasurer. So, the idea that the Police were going to pull Sturgeon was a racing certainty. Three people were responsible for the Scottish National Party finances, Nicola Sturgeon, Peter Murrell and Colin Beattie. Now, at this stage, it is worthwhile mentioning the word of caution by Police Scotland citing the Contempt of Court Act 1981, all the suspects named above have the presumption of innocence in law. It seems that as Operation Branchform is an active case although no one has been charged with any crime. The Police started this investigation circa 2 years ago over the issue of indyref 2 crowd funder which raked in £600,000; this money was said by the SNP to be woven through their accounts. A serious bit of journalism by Wings Over Scotland trawling through the submitted accounts of the SNP pointed out that an issue regarding cash flow held by the party. The sum in the accounts didn’t match the sum raised by the indyref 2 crowd funder.
In the wake of being arrested and held for 7 hours, the press gathered outside the home of Nicola Sturgeon presumably to welcome her home, but she didn’t go home, she went into hiding. Not only did she go into hiding, so did Peter Murrell, this might have seen strange to ordinary people which lead me to ask the question is there academic data between innocent and people going into hiding after being arrested by Police? Also, it is worth mentioning that Sturgeon proxy, Humza Yousaf who appears to be the ‘caretaker’ put in place by the Sturgeon Cult is not going to suspend Nicola Sturgeon. And he is also not going to suspend Colin Beattie and Peter Murrell, which has raised some eyebrows. Why does this raise eyebrows? Basically because when Sturgeon was First Minister and leader of the SNP, she would suspend memberships of elected SNP Politicians even without them being arrested under the catch all of bringing the party into disrepute. Lots of questions now specifically about Humza Yousaf’s behaviour which goes beyond his defence line of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ will be coming down the pipeline.
Why
the double standards by Humza Yousaf?
Why
did Humza Yousaf allegedly threaten members by saying back Sturgeon or leave?
Why
did the SNP send flowers to Nicola Sturgeon post arrest?
Why
does there appear to be an SNP led campaign to declare Nicola Sturgeon
innocent?
Why
did SNP MP Anne McLaughlin effectively tweet that Nicola Sturgeon is incapable
of committing any crime?
Why did SNP MSP James Dornan say that the press and police have colluded together?
What is happening inside the SNP under Humza Yousaf is strange, but I come back to the question, who is this campaign targeted at?
In
the wider sense, you might opine and assume that the Nicola Sturgeon is innocent
campaign is targeted directly at the public. But is the public support for
Nicola Sturgeon still there? Well, no, in a recent polling her popularity sits
at -7%, she enjoyed a +28 favourability rating as recently as December 2020
when she was doing her staged managed Joan of Arc routine, the savior of the
nation from Covid. Oh, how the less than intellectually mighty have fallen now.
One recurring concern for me which begs the question, why at this stage of
Operation Branchform, with no one being charged with anything, would this ‘support
Nicola Sturgeon’ be needed?
What did Police Scotland ask her on Sunday 11th June, and what answers, if any did she provide to the Police? If you had the opportunity would you sit through the 7 hours of her taped or videoed interview? Did she explain where the £600,000 indyref 2 cash is? In a recent Holyrood session, an SNP Minister tried to change the meaning of what the word ‘ring fenced’ actually meant, they’re appear to suggest that money taken from a budget could be taken away and spent, and then when more money came in, this money would go back into the budget. Is this a ploy to be used at any future criminal trial relating to Operation Branchform? If this was used, such a tactic would hold no weight with a judge or jury. Can you imagine SNP Government Ministers going into a court to attempt to explain what their version of ‘ring fenced’ means?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK6rWD00-jw
Basically what is said in this video, we have an IOU, and at some point it will be honoured because we have said so. Or, if you prefer, we spent the money but when more comes in, we will put it back.
When Nicola Sturgeon returned home on Sunday 18th June after a week in hiding, it was very noticeable that her husband Peter Murrell wasn’t standing beside her. And it was very noticeable that her demeanour and body language screamed that she didn’t want to answer any questions or be there in front of the press. She couldn’t look anyone directly in the eye, but she was keen that the press meets up with her later in the week, to ask questions. This appears to be part of her and the SNP’s campaign to declare her innocent of any wrongdoing.
Why does she need a campaign to declare her innocence?
After Sturgeon proxy, Humza Yousaf demand back Nicola Sturgeon or leave the party, at the next FMQs, it appears that 20 plus SNP MSPs didn’t turn up. As the nationalist camp implodes, those who hold seats are fearful of their future and rightly so. Polling shows 20 plus losses of SNP Westminister seats to Scottish Labour. In trying to save Sturgeon’s party membership, is Humza Yousaf or whoever controls him willing to risk the party’s future? It appears so, so what is in it for Yousaf? In the recent Bellshill council by-election, the result was a disaster for the SNP, even Humza Yousaf campaigning made no difference; Scottish Labour polled twice as many votes. A real test though will be the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election for Westminster. The SNP were traditionally good at organizing the big by-elections for Holyrood or Westminster, pulling in activists from right across Scotland, but as donations dry up, will the same happen with the experienced activists not showing up? What does a loss at Rutherglen and Hamilton West mean for the SNP Westminster group?
An answer to the question above might be rebellion, you see when you threaten people’s future and money; people become less compliant to authority. Already the shift away from the party leadership has started the party’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn has said Nicola Sturgeon, her husbandPeter Murrell and Colin Beattie MSP would no longer be welcome in the SNP if they were charged by the police. In Flynn’s mind, a criminal charge alone would be the material grounds to eject someone from the party, rather than waiting for a lengthy court verdict to happen. He told BBC Radio Scotland:
“In terms of my views at the moment, if someone is charged by the police for wrongdoing, then they shouldn’t be in the Scottish National Party.I am not aware of anyone being charged by the police in relation to any matter who is in the Scottish National Party. If that changes, then I’m sure people will act accordingly.”
People will act accordingly? Does that mean coup against Humza Yousaf? Does that mean vote of no confidence and a leadership challenge? Are there grounds to challenge for the replacement of Humza Yousaf? If so, does this mean a Kate Forbes for First Minister campaign is primed to go? If you have watched the SNP closely, you will know they operate to the cult of personality, in the case of Humza Yousaf, this pitch has flatly bottomed out. In their attempts to make Humza Yousaf credible and loveable to the masses, it just isn’t happening.
Although all eyes of the public are fixed on Operation Branchform, and let’s face it, everyone loves a good crime story, there are also two more criminal investigations working their way down the pipeline. In total, as of this day the SNP and the Scottish Government are embroiled in three live criminal cases.
Alex
Salmond investigation leaks
The longest-running one apprently is the perjury investigation into Peter Murrell, which Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie instigated 19 months ago in January 2021.
Finally, it never rains but it pours, my eye was drawn to this gem. It appears that Police Officers are assessing allegations that SNP MP’s relative handed over thousands to the Scottish National Party but that donations were never declared to the Electoral Commission. It is said that SNP officials accepted envelopes stuffed with cash from a relative of one of the party’s own MPs. Begs the question, which SNP Officials? When? How much? And whether the money was paid into the SNP bank account? And just to show hard feelings, the new explosive claims were made in a letter sent last week to Police Scotland. A copy was also sent to the Lord Advocate, the country’s chief prosecutor, and The Scottish Mail on Sunday. So, I guess some people already interviewed and possibly others who haven’t been might have a trip to the police station in their futures. Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, parties are legally obliged to declare donations worth more than £500. Failure to do so is a criminal offence which can result in a party being fined and ordered to forfeit the undeclared donations. And, the cherry, who took the cash in envelopes of cash and what did they do with them?
I
am sure there are many questions, but an indicator of withdrawal of human
capital might be exposed when the SNP members are expected to turn in Dundee for #HumzaFest
when for the price of a tenner members can hear pure drivel. Followed by the standard SNP
con trick that 2024 Westminster election is a de facto referendum on
independence. Quite frankly, the whole thing looks more like an exercise in
raising a few quid to pay the party’s spiralling legal fees via ordinary
members’ pockets, because let's face it, these people appear to have a track record when it comes to using other people's money to pay for things.
If we had a Lord Advocate that followed the principles of law and not the diktat of whoever was FM at the time, these problems would not arise in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHolyrood was established to provide openness, accountability and equality for all. It has failed on every count, hasn't it? They don't even think that they have to try not to fail; they just fail and no-one can do anything about it. My experience has been that Labour could be worse and so it is a root and branch reform of Holyrood that we need, not a change from SNP to Labour.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Allard,
ReplyDeleteThe statutory duty for providing a safe and compliant building falls upon you as Council Co-Leader and I can advise you that what you set-out in your letter is entirely unlawful. I understand that there are a large number of lawyers working on this case just now and so surely they, and you, are aware of that?
When the land starts to sink and to flood, a hydraulic failure of the land is taking place and that requires immediate guidance from a geotechnical expert, not a visual inspection report from a surveyor or a structural engineer, as you have been doing. Design Standard EC7 explains all of this; it is the law and it therefore must be done. It could and should have been done when I first reported the failure (see trailing Email), which was 22/11/15. You appear to be saying that this still hasn't been done? Is that correct?
As Ms Dunbar explained to you, this case was examined in November 2017 by many expert geotechnical engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and they were very concerned by it. Some said that it could be fixed and others said that it couldn't be fixed. The same ASCE experts identified a hydraulic failure as being the cause of the sudden collapse of the Surfside Apartment building in Florida two years ago and so these engineers know what they are talking about. Hydraulic failures, such as at Brimmond School, often lead to sudden collapses and deformations "from the bottom" and it would be a grave error to do as you are doing and expect prior warning of such a failure because, very often, there is no warning.
I understand that Ms Dunbar's letter was very detailed and yet your response ignores all of it and that can only mean that you have thought about this, taken advice on it, and you have decided to ignore it. That is your decision of course, but the public and those who use this building every day will see it differently.
I am a whistle-blower and I brought this to the attention of Aberdeen City Council and their lawyers Harper MacLeod almost 9-years ago now, when there was still plenty of time to have it fixed. I have had to deal with a great many obtuse people in that timeframe and so all that I am interested in is bringing that to an end now.
Law in Scotland exists to protect the public interest and you and many of those listed above have their salaries paid by the public and so they exist to protect the public interest too. I do not have a copy of Jackie Dunbar's letter, but I do have a copy of Jackie Baillie's letter of 2/8/18 (attached) and I presume that they are both very similar. Should it really take 6-years for a letter like this to be answered by Aberdeen City Council's Co-Leader? Do any of the rest of you think that this is acceptable?
Can I ask that you take guidance from Stephen Garvin today and answer points 1-5 on Jackie Baillie's letter? It is normal for such a response to be written by the engineer who carried-out the review with only the covering letter by yourself, as Co-Leader of the Council. As I believe everyone listed above already knows, I had a long meeting with Mr Garvin on 23/5/19 and so he is ideally placed to answer this for all of us and we are all waiting for that. We are not waiting on anything else.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
Can you explain to me which MSP is pursuing an outcome for me? Jackie Baillie has recused herself and I am waiting on you to identify another MSP who will take this forward to a conclusion on my behalf. As you can see from the foregoing, my input is at an end and I want to move-on but I cannot do that without an MSP. MSP's exist to provide "openness, equality and accountability for all" and on that basis I am asking you to resolve this to an outcome for me. Either do it yourself or delegate someone else to do it, please.
Mr Allard's letter:
ReplyDelete"Thank-you for your Emails related to your concerns about Brimmond School.
I can advise that Aberdeen City Council in conjunction with an external consultant introduced a building monitoring schedule in 2022 to record any signs of building movement. Five visits were undertaken during a 12-month period the last being in February 2023. No building movement has been recorded.
Aberdeen City Council continue to ensure regular monitoring is undertaken at Brimmond School as part of the planned maintenance of the estate."
As my reply points out, you cannot do this and remain within the law. If you cast your mind back to the Cole Inquiry, Edinburgh City Council closed and fixed the schools because they were proven to be defective, as Brimmond has been proven to be defective. They didn't monitor them.
Dear Sejal Raja,
ReplyDeleteI replied to you 2-weeks ago and the main purpose of my reply was to explain to you that the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) decision that visual inspection reports by structural engineers were acceptable as a means of identifying latent defects in buildings was in my view, Professor Cole's view, Protect's view, the ICE view as expressed at the Cole Inquiry and the legal view as expressed by the Design Standards, wrong.
The attached letter from Mr Allard, the Co-Leader at Aberdeen City Council explains the point that I was making. That decision has probably taken engineering back at least 20 or 30 years in this country. You can see that Mr Allard is using that decision and he is using it not in an honest way that is designed to protect public safety. Frankly, it is a decision that would never have been made by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
This decision has cost me dearly and it will go-on to put lives at risk and I don't think that there is anyone copied into this Email that would dispute that and Brimmond School is an exemplar case of where dishonesty and lack of accountability is being actively supported by the decisions made by Institution that you represent and I would ask you to think about that and do something about it.
I am expecting a reply soon either from yourself or from the Institution of Civil Engineers, and so please ensure that it is delivered. The question that I asked again was: "Can visual Inspection reports be used to identify latent defects in buildings?" When your response is received, I will distribute it amongst the cc list above to ensure everyone is properly informed.
George: There are so many vested interests involved that it needed someone in authority to come over to my side and make the same argument. As I said, I don't know who Jackie Dunbar is, other than she is the constituency MSP. But, that has been enough. She speaks on behalf of parents and teachers. Her letter was excellent and so Mr Allard has elected not to answer it for now, but that will not last. Buro Happold are involved quite extensively just now and they need to be seen to deliver and so my guess is that it will move very quickly now. Thanks are due to Jackie Dunbar for this.
ReplyDeleteParalysed by fear, the term sheep applies, there is a lack of leadership, proper leadership, inability to accept and sort problems.
DeleteMs Sejal Raja has copied this through to something like 25 folk. My meeting tomorrow should be with James Lloyd and Elizabeth Mitchell of Harper MacLeod and that is all that I care about now. Jackie Dunbar has done a very good job and she can call upon 900No angry parents and teachers if she has to. She may not need that though, as the information makes this a slam-dunk, so to speak.
DeleteDear Sejal Raja,
ReplyDeleteI believe that we all have the Brimmond constituency MSP Jackie Dunbar to thank for recent progress. She is not an engineer but has reviewed the evidence, listened to her constituents' concerns, and can see that something isn't right with this school. It takes gumption for her to then investigate and ask questions and that should be recognized.
There are two professional engineering institutions represented in the evidence that I presented to Ms Dunbar: The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). 44No named experts from the ASCE submitted opinions and an unnamed expert from the ICE submitted his/her opinion. Because we are in the UK, the ICE opinion carries authority and the ASCE opinions do not.
I probably speak for everyone when I say that no-one has a problem with that. We should expect the ASCE opinions and the ICE opinion to be exactly the same - and they are not the same, are they? In fact, they are entirely the opposite of each other and that is problem number-one. (It's a fairly major problem though, isn't it?)
Problem number-two is that the ICE opinion is also in direct contradiction to Design Standard EC7 (which is legally binding), the SER Certification Scheme (which is legally binding) and the recommendations of the Cole Inquiry Report which was commissioned in 2016-17 to examine the reasons why schools were collapsing in Scotland. That is what makes me believe that the ICE opinion is probably wrong.
I have gone over all of this ground with you before of course on 7th June and again yesterday. I copied-in the ICE and I asked that you both look at this again as the ICE decision has caused an extraordinary and needless delay in the conclusion of this case because, as long as the ICE state that visual inspection reports are acceptable, they will continue to be used and, ergo, schools will continue to deform and collapse and I stated yesterday that this decision has set engineering back in Scotland by several decades.
I note that you have distributed your Email widely and so I will distribute my reply to the same interested parties in order to provide balance. I attach another copy of Bob Matheson's trailing Email of 30/11/22 so that everyone can see how simple this is. Bob Matheson wasn't an engineer either, but he read the Cole Inquiry Report (have you read it?) and so he understood this very clearly. Continue to rely upon visual inspection reports and you will continue to have unexplained and sudden deformations and collapses. It is a simple cause and effect and I am surprised and disappointed that the ICE do not see that.
Bob Matheson was no doubt suggesting in his Email that the ICE get involved again and I think that is probably what we all think they should be doing just now rather than sending their lawyer to cover-up their mistakes. Where would you all be just now without the whistle-blower and where would you all be without the ASCE?
If the ICE are wrong, and I presume that everyone now suspects that they are wrong, kindly confirm that by return Email and that lets everyone get-on with the rest of their lives in relative peace.
Dear Mr O'Hara and Mr Sarwar,
As you both know, I am expecting an appointment to meet Harper MacLeod in their office on Friday. Can one of you make sure that is organized that for me today, please?
Dear Mr Sarwar, Mr O'Hara and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI received the attached letter from Co-Leader, Mr Allard, of Aberdeen City Council a couple of hours ago. Responsibility for continuing reliance on the use of visual inspection reports, by this council, lies with the council itself and with the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), who have looked at the visual inspection report in question, and have judged it as capable of being relied upon to identify latent defects in the soil under foundations. For completeness, I attach the visual inspection report, by Ramsay and Chalmers. The ICE may wish to now review that decision? I will leave that for them.
Personally speaking and as someone who has worked in engineering environments worldwide and has witnessed accidents large and small and who has investigated them, I find this embarrassing now, frankly. Anyone can see that the land is sinking, and flooding, and that is the precursor of structural deformation and collapse. How many times and to how many people do I have to report this to and how many expert opinions do you require?
I copy this and Mr Allard's letter to all, as Ms Sejal Raja did yesterday, as the public expectation would be that proper communication takes place between all of the parties that are involved and, this way, we may at last see some honesty and accountability emerge from this thoroughly putrid sequence of events.
Mr Allard refers to the Council's previous examination of the case and he has declined to add anything to that and he gives the impression that the previous letter answered everything. The letter he is referring to, from the council's Jenny Laing, was received on 25/1/19 and is attached. Bob Matheson from Protect reviewed that letter and his opinion, dated 28/1/19, is noted below. So, nothing was answered by Jenny Laing. In fact, Bob describes the letter as being: "pretty shameful". So, how can any of us accept this when we know that no investigation has ever been carried-out?
I am aware that Ms Dunbar, in response to concerns raised by her constituents, issued a very similar range of questions to the council approximately a week ago and Mr Allard appears to be refusing to answer these questions. In that case, it becomes a matter for ministers at the Scottish Government to adjudicate, in compliance with the Education Scotland Act. So, can we can all agree that this matter is now passed directly to ministers at the Scottish Government?
ReplyDeleteThat means that a minister is now responsible for engaging with the council and for carrying-out a point for point reconciliation of my evidence, which is contained in "Information 1", "Information 2" and "Information 3", which has been sent to Mr Allard, Ms Dunbar, Mr Garvin and Ms Baillie with the council's evidence, if indeed they have any evidence. The decision by the minister, when it is finally made, will not involve me and I do not require to see it, but it will involve engagement with all of the other parties that are involved and are listed above and that will include, presumably, the EIS.
Can I leave you to agree between yourselves who reports this and which minister you report it to? The only point I would make is that remedial work may be complex and it can probably only be carried-out during the summer shut-down. That adds an unusual urgency to the timeline and so it would be prudent to keep that in mind. I think we can all agree that we have reached the end of the road with the council?
Finally, as you are aware, I am expecting to attend a meeting tomorrow with Harper MacLeod to end my involvement in this case. Please respond to me today on this.
Dear Sejal Raja,
This is inevitably what happens when your client fails to properly regulate the conduct of its members in compliance with the ethical code and it is most disappointing. What we are uncovering, thanks to the work of Ms Dunbar, is that a whole series of design checks that should have been carried-out have not been carried-out and that point to has been made by myself over numerous iterations and, because your client has refused to communicate, it has consequently taken until now to finally gain acceptance by those listed above. I have watched this unfold over the years and it was always going to end in one of a number of very bad outcomes. Investigation of the evidence, at the stage we are at now, by Scottish Government ministers, is one of the more benign of those outcomes and paragraph 2 above explains the others.
Dear Mr O'Hara and Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteIt looks as if I am finished now. If a letter is delivered from Ms Sejal Raja then I will answer it of course, but I am pretty certain that Mr Allard will not be sending any more letters.
As I have explained to you both, several times now, it is time for me to be paid my losses and return to work. As I see it, this problem is Harper MacLeod's creation and all that I am asking you to do is to arrange a meeting, tomorrow, and I will agree an acceptable settlement with them at the meeting.
I understand that it is their James Lloyd and Elizabeth Mitchell that I should be meeting and so can you arrange that for me please? All that I need is a time for the meeting and an agenda and that should be delivered to me within the next couple of hours.
I presume that ministers will be taking a close interest in this case from now-on and so if Harper MacLeod refuse - just stop paying them.
George - The problem the council has is that this has been in the Press twice, but they have been assuring everyone since 2016 that the school had been checked by experts and was safe. It turns out they were lying. They have nevertheless certified it each year as safe and that is "reckless certification" which is a criminal offence.
ReplyDeleteIf someone sends me something then I will respond. That may happen but it probably won't happen. Other than that we are now finished and I am waiting on either Brendan O'Hara getting back to me, or Anas Sarwar. I always looked upon Harper MacLeod's office as Mafia HQ. I'm sure they are pleasant enough to each other but they treat the public disgracefully.
I think lying is the norm now in politics and government, this is because the careerists cover each others back.
DeleteThe Institution of Civil Engineers may be worried, George? Why do you think they would they employ a lawyer? If they were confident that they were right and I was wrong, would they employ a lawyer?
ReplyDeleteRoddy Dunlop was copied-in - not by me, by Ms Sejal Raja and Harper MacLeod now have a PR man involved and so it is a right mess now. Sadly though, I am right. I just wonder how Professor Rennie would have dealt with this?
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Sarwar and Mr O'Hara,
ReplyDeleteFollowing Mr Allard's letter, I attach the Act which I referred to yesterday: Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (legislation.gov.uk) The Minister's role is explained in Part 1.2 and the "Standards" in this case are EC7, SER and the Cole Inquiry recommendations.
I have no authority in this process and I remain willing to leave this investigation as quickly as I possibly can. Mr Allard and his team have no authority either and authority is now between the Scottish Government Minister and Scotland's Head of Building Standards, Stephen Garvin.
The final design review report will be by Mr Garvin and only the covering letter will be by the Minister and that will produce a result which will then be distributed to Mr Allard and all other interested parties.
My own view is that we may have run-out of time and it is now too late to do anything and if Mr Garvin's design review concludes, as the experts of the ASCE concluded, that there is a serious latent design error in this building, then there is certainly a risk that the school may not re-open again after the summer holiday. But, that is for the Scottish Government to determine.
When you ignore the whistle-blower for long enough that he is finally able to turn around and say this to you, then you know this has turned into a needless National disaster, don't you.
I didn't receive notice of the meeting today with Harper MacLeod and that is very disappointing. Can I suggest that the Scottish Government suspends all invoices due to be paid to this Company until the meeting is called and can I ask both of you to pursue this for me urgently and leave everything else to the others listed above.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteI am now excluding Anas Sarwar and Brendan O'Hara as I have asked them to work exclusively on an outcome for myself.
I am providing you with information that I believe is crucial and the undernoted was sent to the ICE on 10/6/21 and it was my complaint of professional misconduct against their member, Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government.
I received their adjudication 4-months later; it was very short, about half a page long and they have asked me not to copy it to anyone else, but it stated that Mr Moore was correct to rely upon the visual inspection report (by Ramsay and Chalmers). That resulted in Hub/Aberdeen City Council commissioning another 5No visual inspection reports, almost straight away and that put us further away from a solution than ever and it has taken a long time and a lot of extra work to get back to where we are now.
So, it was a hugely disappointing outcome and it was a missed opportunity to realize the extent of the problem early-on. You are fortunate in that you have expert advice from the ASCE and that explains that you have a more grave set of design problems at Brimmond than either the ICE, or Ramsay and Chalmers or any of the other 5No visual inspection reports have given the impression exist there.
Mr Garvin will elect to either follow the ASCE, or the ICE and that is for him, but whichever he decides to follow will determine whether the school can re-open again after the summer and that is what I set-out to everyone this morning. No-one has put more effort than I have into avoiding this scenario and I do hope that the reasons why my efforts failed are looked at by an Inquiry at some time in the future.
I copy-in Ms Sejal Raja so that she can see for herself how the ASCE works, vis a vis the ICE and it is entirely different. It should be the same but it clearly isn't. Bob Matheson questioned the ICE finding, officially, at the time and I am giving Ms Sejal Raja the opportunity to look at it again, with her client. If she decides to do that and to communicate and offer advice as the ASCE have done, it will greatly assist both yourself and Mr Garvin and thus save everyone a lot of time and work in the days ahead. I will leave that for her to consider with her client.
James Cameron - “This OceanGate sub had sensors on the inside of a hull to give them a warning when it was starting to crack,” he told the BBC. “And I think if that’s your idea of safety, then you’re doing it wrong."
ReplyDeleteLet's change a few words - “This Aberdeen City Council school had sensors on the outside of the walls to give them a warning when it was starting to crack,” he told the BBC. “And I think if that’s your idea of safety, then you’re doing it wrong."
James Cameron (again) - "We now have another wreck that is based on unfortunately the same principles of not heeding warnings," he said. "OceanGate were warned."
ReplyDeleteLet's change a few words - "We now have another collapse that is based on unfortunately the same principles of not heeding warnings," he said. "Harper MacLeod, Jackie Baillie, Aberdeen City Council, Hub, Audit Scotland, Scottish Futures Trust, the EIS, the Scottish Government, Scottish Building Standards, Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers.......were all warned."
Dear Mr Dunlop,
ReplyDeleteIt was, in fact, Ms Sejal Raja that contacted you in the first instance. I replied only to ensure that the correct factual situation was recorded and I have now done that.
George - I know I've said this before, several times, but I reckon that's us finished now.
ReplyDeleteI shouldn't have lumped Audit Scotland in with the rest of them, as I did earlier, and so I apologize for that.
It's been very disappointing from all of the others though, hasn't it.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteAs you are aware, on 23rd May, Jackie Baillie MSP recused herself from this investigation. I gave her a week to reconsider, she didn't do that and so I contacted you on 29th May and asked you to either take over from Ms Baillie, or appoint someone else to take over from her. You didn't respond to that request, or to the several other requests that I have to made to you since then, and that is very disappointing.
On 4th June, I contacted Jackie Dunbar MSP and asked for her assistance in having the safety of the land and of the school building properly investigated and assessed by geotechnical experts and I notice that she is already making progress with that far more complex issue. Her predecessor at Aberdeen Donside, Mark MacDonald, was also willing to help and so the I am satisfied that the longstanding delay has not been caused by the Brimmond constituency MSP, it has in fact been caused by Ms Baillie and, latterly, by yourself.
I offered to meet Harper MacLeod in their capacity as Aberdeen City Council/Hub legal advisors for a final outcome meeting last week and I heard nothing from you and so I am asking again. Once the meeting is organized, all of you can then step back from this and leave it to Harper MacLeod.
Dear Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that. The engineer with contractual authority to answer your question is Hugh Mallett, of Buro Happold.
Mr Allard knows the answer already and when he finally confirms to us what we know already, the case will defer to the Scottish Government as explained in the Education Scotland Act. With the school summer shut-down nearly upon us, the sooner that happens the better, for everyone.
I am still waiting to hear from Mr Sarwar. Everyone else understands that I am being kept waiting needlessly, you obviously do, and I wonder why he doesn't understand?
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteFor the closing meeting between myself and Harper MacLeod to go-ahead on Friday, an invitation should be sent-out to me tomorrow, which will include an agenda. It should be sent via my MSP and, if Ms Baillie is still refusing to co-operate, then it should be sent via yourself. Can you agree, between yourselves, who is going to do that, please?
After the meeting on Friday concludes, the safety of the school will be a matter for Ms Dunbar, Mr Allard and the Scottish Government and I am satisfied that Ms Dunbar is pursuing the matter honestly, persistently and professionally on behalf of her constituents and that is what is needed this close to the school's summer shut-down.
In engineering, this is the type of hugely expensive mess that develops when those in authority do not, for whatever reason, communicate with each other and I am referencing Ms Baillie, Aberdeen City Council and laterally yourself, when I say that. Hence, please ensure that I receive an answer tomorrow, please.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteThe way I have always viewed the term 'locus' is that it means anyone who has allowed the impression to be given to the public that this building is safe to occupy, based upon 'visual inspection reports'. That means that it may apply to all of you. So, Roddy Dunlop says that he has no locus and no doubt he is correct, but you do have a locus and that is exemplified by those called before the Grenfell Inquiry.
The school is closing for the summer recess, approximately 10-days from now, and so there is only a very short window in which to approve and instruct the work that needs to be done to ensure it can re-open again, safely, towards the middle of August and that is a compressed timeline that will be very difficult to achieve.
I presume that is being progressed just now by Scottish Building Standards and Aberdeen City Council's Building Standards team? That is the most pressing issue and it is now being managed by the Aberdeen Donside constituency MSP, Jackie Dunbar.
I am sending this Email as I have been doing everyone's job for them over the years, unpaid, and I now wish to return to work. The way I look upon this is that if I hadn't persisted and pursued the truth in the way that I have, then nothing would have been investigated, nothing would ever have been fixed and that would have put life-safety at the school at great risk for many years. That was also Bob Matheson's view, which he expressed at the end of last year.
In order to end my involvement, I require to attend an outcome meeting with Harper MacLeod on Friday 30th June. I have asked Anas Sarwar to organize the meeting, several times, but he has not responded and his deputy, Jackie Baillie, has recused herself and so I currently have no parliamentary representation and I see that, frankly, as being completely unacceptable.
Can I suggest that Mr Moore, Mr Innes, Mr Garvin and Ms White ensure that an instruction is given to Harper MacLeod today to call the meeting on Friday? It is crucial that you all start communicating to get everything underway prior to the school closing and Holyrood closing for the summer recess and I am satisfied that Ms Dunbar is doing that on your behalf.
I am asking to be contacted today, directly by Harper MacLeod, with a time, venue, agenda and list of attendees for the meeting on Friday and can I request that Harper MacLeod issue me with an agenda, 48-hours prior to the meeting and so that should arrive with me, later today? It is important that Friday's meeting is a proper outcome meeting and I leave with all aspects of the case resolved.
I am a whistle-blower and I first made a disclosure about the safety of this school to Harper MacLeod in September 2014. It was made in compliance with the laws governing the engineering industry and with the engineer's ethical code and I have had to repeat the same disclosure many times since then, to all of you. Can I therefore ask that the change-over from myself doing all of the investigative work, to you doing it, takes place officially on Friday and I am asking you to communicate and ensure that this is done.
Finally, we have been given a lesson in engineering ethics and effective communication by the experts of the American Society of Civil Engineers and this case would never have been solved without their help. This is the way you investigate engineering when everyone else is refusing and you are all fortunate that I have done this for you, and handed it to you, because you would never have done it.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteI was expecting Friday's meeting to be confirmed to me by Harper MacLeod yesterday. They didn't contact me, presumably because you didn't contact them, and so ensure that it is done now please.
Undernoted are the minutes of Meeting 1, which was held on 17/8/16 and minutes of Meeting 2, which was held on 23/5/19. Both meetings were with Scottish Building Standards. The agendas were by myself and so I recorded the meetings and why these gravely serious concerns were not investigated properly at the time will concern all who are reading this Email.
Jonathan Moore responded to Meeting 1 by saying that Buro Happold had reviewed and accepted the compliance of the design change and Stephen Garvin responded to Meeting 2 by saying that he was going to check the safety of the design change with Aberdeen City Council. Sadly, it appears that neither of these gentleman was truthful and that makes me very angry.
The agenda for tomorrow's meeting will be by Harper MacLeod and so whether they record the meeting or not will be for them. We have been through this routine many, many times over the years, but I want it to be ended tomorrow and there is no reason why that cannot be done.
Respond to me later this morning, please.
George - I'm still waiting for a response. Everyone's gone completely silent. Does that mean they accept that I, and the others, have been right all-along? It probably does.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, we are only waiting on Harper MacLeod. The school shuts in a few days time. Can someone fix it in the time available during the shut-down and who is going to pay ? Or, are they just going to continue to monitor the walls for movement and cracks?
This is the Gerald Ratner moment and, in this context, it becomes difficult for them to defend the position that they exist to protect the public interest. Myself, plus the ASCE, have done that for them. Ironically, we're just about the only folk that haven't been paid.
Dear Mr Garvin,
ReplyDeleteCan I suggest that the Scottish Government now suspends payments to Harper MacLeod?
It would be interesting to know what Professor Cole's advice to you would be? Something has gone badly wrong here, hasn't it?
George - We appear to be at D-Day now, at last. The others are saying: "Not me...we're team players...we're part of a team". They might get away with that, who knows.
ReplyDeleteMr Garvin though is not a team player. He is a "leader". So, he cannot say that and that's the way it has worked in the past.
It's not for me to advise him on what to do, but I would have swept Harper MacLeod out of the way years ago and my guess is that Professor Cole would have done that too.
The fight keeps going until they are defeated, and you get the victory and proven to be right.
DeleteJackie Dunbar has done a good job. She keeps me informed, even although I am not her constituent, and her contribution has been pivotal.
DeleteAt the end, it all narrows down so that only two or three people from Ogilvie Construction, two or three people from Buro Happold and two or three people from Harper MacLeod are involved and that's where we are just now.
My take-home message for anyone reading this is "Don't touch the Labour Party and don't touch Harper MacLeod with a bargepole". I am not political, in fact I usually vote for the Labour Party, but they are beyond saving.
The safety of the school can be left to Jackie Dunbar now and she has identified the pressure points. The pressure point, by the way, is "visual inspection reports" and she gets that very clearly.
On a personal level, you have to be careful that your bank doesn't see money leaving your account every month and no money coming in to replace it. That's been going-on for years and they could suddenly cancel your account.
We are at the end though. It's been a re-run of your experience with Professor Rennie, hasn't it.
On a happier note: You are currently being mentioned in the same sentence as "The American Society of Civil Engineers" and "Protect". I hope I get a mention soon. Is that the best company you have ever been in? I expect it is.
Colin,
ReplyDeleteI hope that you and the family are keeping well.
You will recall we last met at Brimmond School in 2014. We were working for Ogilvie Construction at the time and the others involved in the project were Gavin Stewart, Douglas Jack and Bob Gray.
I had left for annual holiday in July leaving both yourself and Gavin on the site. I didn't want any more contamination excavations to be carried-out as we had just received a report from Buro Happold's Hugh Mallett which advised very strongly against it. The reason he complained was firstly because there was little or no contamination on the site to begin with, but principally because the groundwater conditions were aggressive and that huge volumes of groundwater was flowing quickly through the site in underground artesian layers and he was concerned that those had to remain intact for the design to work.
Nevertheless, the day after I left, I understand that Douglas Jack instructed David Smith to carry-out a 5m deep excavation along the entire west perimeter of the site. That must have been around 25m in length? That was precisely what Hugh Mallett had just advised us not to do. It appeared to me to have been a reckless and needless thing to do and I have been saying that for years now. It was always going to end badly.
Gavin complained at the time that the artesian layers were being cut-through and blocked with clay and that would lead inevitably to the site flooding with groundwater when the building was finished. I obviously wasn't there at the time, but he later told me that Douglas Jack told him to leave the site and terminated him a week or so later. The whole thing sounded extraordinary to me, almost delinquent as if we were working with cowboys.
I returned from holiday and made the same complaint and Bob Gray terminated me as well. I believe that Ogilvie Construction also blacklisted me and, as a result of that, I have hardly worked since then.
I am unaware of exactly what happened to you. I remember that you remained for perhaps several months after me? If so, you may have seen the first of the foundations being constructed and so you may be able to add some new information at this point. I expect that they would have experienced difficulties with waterlogged, collapsing ground and you may have seen some of that? All that I will say is that if the ground was wet and collapsing during July and August, then it is obviously going to be worse and a lot more unstable, during the winter months.
Colin,
ReplyDeleteThe number that I have found for Gavin is --------------------.
It may be better if you called him and sent him the data that I sent you at the weekend. Let him think about it first and make-up his mind what to do. If I call him, it may seem that I am putting pressure on him.
If I have been right, then there may be some kind of Inquiry into this case, in which case it would make sense for you and Gavin to write down your recollection of events and send it to Ms Dunbar and Ms Raphael.
Frankly, I don't need to see it and as long as they have it, that will be OK.
Colin,
ReplyDeleteLet me explain something which will clarify the information that is required:
The water table at Brimmond was high, about 0.5m to 1.0m below ground level. That is the aquifer and below that the soil is saturated. Digging into saturated soil is no great drama; water will leak slowly out and run down the face of the excavation in a few locations, but that's all.
Digging through an artesian layer is different and water will rush-out from the side of the excavation quite forcefully. The pressure of the flow can be 0.2bar or 0.4bar, for example, and you cannot stop it. If you just fill that excavation in again with clay, or mixed soil which is essentially clay, then you will block the artesian layer and the water will just flow all over the place and that is what has been happening. It is called a "Hydraulic Failure".
I tried to explain this at the time to Bob Gray and Douglas Jack, but they weren't interested.
If the excavation was 1m deep and 2 or 3 m long, then the situation would have been recoverable. But when it is 5m deep and 25m long, that is probably not recoverable and that has always been my fear. During the winter, these effects will be more forceful and they are not predictable. So, there is not one hydraulic failure, there are many of them.
The problem that I have encountered over the years is that I wasn't on site and I so didn't see this and the experts from the ASCE didn't see it either and so we are all, to an extent, surmising based upon what we expect has happened and if you look at the comment by expert 11, he explains this.
Both yourself and Gavin did see it though. So, the question is: was the water just leaking slowly out of the face of the excavation in a few places, or was it rushing out forcibly in a few places? Then, once that is answered, it can be turned-over to the designer, Buro Happold. Our job is to alert Buro Happold and the rest of the team that there is a problem and it is their job to propose a solution.
Colin,
ReplyDeleteI recall Gavin telling me by phone at the time that water was exiting from one side of the excavation and being forced against the face of the opposing side of the excavation. If so, that would put it in the approximate range of 0.2bar - 0.4bar pressure, as below. Maybe even higher and, during winter-time, it would almost certainly be higher.
This is something that would be very, very unusual and he would remember it. So, if he is willing to confirm that to you and approximately how many times it happened along the 25m of excavation, or if you witnessed this yourself, we can now hand that information over to the others. As designers, that is all that they need to know.
Believe it or not, that has taken 9-years. No-wonder I am disappointed with them all. There's not an once of gumption in any of them.
Dear Ms Dunbar and Mr Allard,
ReplyDeleteI understand that the school term ends on Friday and thereafter the school is closed for approximately 6-weeks. That means that if remedial works are planned for the building and the land surrounding it, they will have been instructed by now?
Ms Dunbar has offered to take-up the issue of the safety of the building and that will speed things up enormously. To assist her, I contacted Mr Colin Johnstone who supervised the installation of the unplanned 5m deep trench along the west perimeter of the site in July 2014, that appears to have caused all of the problems. I asked him if the groundwater which was released when the trench was dug was under hydrostatic pressure, or not. If it was, and I believe that it was, then the hydraulic failure that I and others have identified will not be easy to fix, whatever you elect to do over the course of the summer. I would therefore urge you to pay close attention to Mr Johnstone's response as it is crucial.
You may also ask for a geotechnical expert opinion from Engineer Nigel Turner of Fairhurst Consulting Engineers of Aberdeen. He personally carried-out the Soil Investigation Report, and compiled the design recommendations, for Aberdeen City Council in 2010 and so that is a second route to verifiable solution for you. He is an engineer who works on an entirely different level of expertise to those that have provided visual inspection reports to you in the past. Therefore, if you listen to the advice from both of these gentlemen, and there is nothing to stop you from doing that today, then the problem is solved, instantly.
Will their advice be different to that offered in the visual inspection reports? Yes, it will be different and I expect that will be a source of great alarm to all of you. That is what Professor Cole found and, sadly, we are following the same trajectory that he followed; we just seem to be taking an extraordinarily long time to get there.
I am a whistle-blower and I am entitled to protection. Colin Johnstone is entitled to the same protection, as is Nigel Turner and I would expect all copied in to this Email to be mindful of that just now. I have offered advice which is in the public interest and Mr Johnstone and Mr Turner will be doing the same and so I would ask that you show them respect. Ms Dunbar and Ms Raphael have been copied-in to all correspondence between myself and Mr Johnstone over the past couple of days and so I can leave it to be concluded by them as he will be comfortable responding to them. I have not contacted Mr Turner and, as he is Aberdeen City Council's consultant, I will leave it to the Council to do that.
So, we have reached a conclusion - at last.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
Jackie Baillie has rescinded herself from any further involvement in this case. She didn't explain her reasons for doing that and it has left me with no representation for the past 5-weeks and I'm sure that you will agree that is not acceptable.
I am requesting a final outcome meeting with the Principles of Harper MacLeod, on Friday 7th July please.
I wish to leave the investigation and I require my future employment and a settlement for the past 9-years to be agreed, at that meeting. I have requested payments are also agreed for 3No agencies that have assisted me over long periods and those include the American Society of Civil Engineers and Protect.
Please advise who is organizing this? Is it yourself, Ms Baillie, or is it another MSP appointed by yourself, or is it a minister? You are only good if you communicate and you have not been communicating and so I would ask you to do that now, please.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteCan you respond to me please? We are all working to a compressed timeline and so if there is a reason why you cannot do as I have asked then kindly let me, and the others, know what the reason is please.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteWhen we are dealing with this subject matter and when we are a couple of days away from the school shut-down, things need to get done immediately and that is the life of a professional engineer. Please appreciate that.
It sounds as if Ms Baillie is responsible for organizing the meeting and so if she confirms the time of the meeting, and who from Harper Macleod will be in attendance, that is all I require.
Respond today, please.
Thank You,
S. Dick
Good afternoon, Mr Dick
Thank you for your email to Anas Sarwar MSP.
I can confirm that, due to strict parliamentary protocol, Members of the Scottish Parliament can only take up issues on behalf of those who live in the constituency or region they represent.
Anas is an MSP for Glasgow Region, and we are therefore not in a position to make representations on your behalf regarding this matter.
Kind regards,
Jacqueline Merchant
Office of Anas Sarwar MSP
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI understand from Mr Sarwar that you are responsible for pursuing this case to a conclusion. Unless you wish to dispute that, can you proceed and just get this finished for me please and I assume that I speak for all of us?
Jackie Dunbar MSP has recently taken-over responsibility for ensuring that the school building, and the land it is built upon, are safe. I have suggested she contacts the Geotechnical Department of Fairhurst Consulting Engineers in Aberdeen for expert guidance. Additionally, Ms Dunbar now has the contact details of the site team that carried-out the works that are currently in dispute. She therefore has all the information that she needs and we can now leave that in her hands.
I have asked to meet Harper MacLeod on Friday and I am asking you to ensure that meeting is organized please. The reason a meeting is required is because I asked them to consult with Fairhurst's Geotechnical Department in September 2014 and if they had done that then, instead of Ms Dunbar having to do it now, then this disaster would have been avoided. That is the nature of whistle-blowing; you either investigate straight away, or it is too late and it is now too late. I attach trailing my Email to Harper MacLeod of 13/9/14 and their response of 18/5/15. Evidently, they had done nothing in eight months and that, in the context of what has transpired since then, is unforgivable.
Finally, when a whistle-blower is supported by 40No world experts, it is very, very unlikely that the whistle-blower is wrong and that is the unmistakable lesson from this disaster.
Please instruct Harper MacLeod to issue a meeting agenda tomorrow (Thursday).
To: Bruce Caldow, Harper MacLeod
ReplyDeleteDate: 13/9/14
"Bruce,
Ogilvie's final letter to me was dated 10th September. These photographs were taken on 11th September 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 consistence of the soils 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."
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI asked for the meeting to be called tomorrow (Friday) and so far I have heard nothing either from yourself, or from Harper MacLeod.
My purpose in attending tomorrow's meeting is to be paid, to ensure that the others that have assisted me over the years are paid and to return to work and that is all.
If there is something that prevents you from doing this for me, let me know what it is please.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI presume that Harper MacLeod did not respond today?
Can I suggest that I meet with Mr McAteer tomorrow, instead? That would be acceptable to me and it will get this over with.
Dear Natalie,
ReplyDeleteWhat I have requested is the following:
1. Payment for myself.
2. Payment for Protect, The American Society of Civil Engineers and one other.
3. Job. (I have a possible solution for that)
I am suggesting that Mr McAteer negotiates for me and I correspond with him from now on. I would like to come in and see him tomorrow (Friday). Let me know if that is possible?
If he is agreeable, then the safety of the school can be led to an outcome over the summer by by Ms Jackie Dunbar MSP, who has the authority and shows a willingness to do it.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it was explained during the Cole Inquiry that those leading Edinburgh City Council at the time were working 24/7 to ensure that their schools were properly checked and were signed-off by experts as safe and so 3No Emails in one day is nothing to complain about, believe me. Anyone that has been involved in a fatal accident, and I have been, will understand that.
All of your denials continue to be predicated upon visual inspection reports by structural engineers. This has been going-on for 7-years now. Can I ask the Institution of Civil Engineers to clear this up once and for all? Latent defects under a building's foundations cannot be detected by a visual inspection report by a structural engineer - is that correct?
The Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981 has been cited many, many times over the years as an example of the way the law looks at those that have given the impression that something has been checked and is safe, when it clearly hasn't been checked and that is what you are all doing just now and electing to remain silent, gives the impression of acquiescence. The only experts that have checked this are from the ASCE and their opinions are well known to all of us by now and not one of them said that the land, and ergo the building, were safe. So, please stop repeating this as it is untrue.
Bob Matheson of Protect, who perhaps did more than anyone to solve this case, said in 30/11/22:
"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."
Bob sent that Email to you, for your action. So, once Bob's two questions are answered, this case is solved and so can you answer Bob's questions for me, please?
Secondly, I attach your letter of 2/8/18 to Jenny Laing of Aberdeen City Council. Had that letter been properly answered at the time, by Ms Laing, this case would have been solved, but it wasn't answered and I suspect that is the root cause of this disaster, isn't it.
Dear Ms Scott,
ReplyDeleteI am aware that Jackie Dunbar MSP has taken-on the role of investigating the safety of Brimmond School in Bucksburn and wishes to have the matter determined, on behalf of her constituents, in time for the new term starting in late August and that is understandable.
My view is that a series of hydraulic failures have occurred in the land surrounding the building and that it is inevitable that a structural deformation will result from that. It is impossible to determine when that will occur but when it does, it is likely to be sudden and it could be catastrophic.
This was predicted before work on the school had even begun and so I am not seeking to be wise after the event, so to speak. I reported it at the time to Harper MacLeod in September 2014 when there was still plenty of time to do something about it, and I reported it to the Council and Hub in May 2015.
This opinion is shared by many expert geotechnical engineers worldwide. In fact, I have yet to find an engineer who does not agree with it and so it appears absolutely crucial to me that the matter is properly investigated by the Council, now, before it is too late and there is only around six-weeks in which to do that.
The attached letter, from 2/8/18, from Jackie Baillie MSP to Jenny Laing, explains the situation as I, and many others, see it and if this letter is answered on a point for point basis by your Building Standards team, then we will all understand the problem and that allows a solution to be found.
I am aware that the Council, as owners of the building, have statutory duty to ensure its safety and so this letter can only really be answered by yourselves.
Jenny Laing did answer the letter some time later, on 25/1/19, and Bob Matheson, who was Head of Advice and Advocacy at Protect, expressed his opinion of it trailing and I will let you read it for yourself. So, her reply was not at-all satisfactory and I have always looked upon this as the missed golden opportunity to realize that this building could in fact fail at any time.
As I see it, the two engineers with design authority to assist you are Hugh Mallett of Buro Happold and Nigel Turner of Fairhurst and I am fairly certain that both of these gentlemen will agree with myself and with the others and, if they do, then there may be insufficient time left to design and carry-out all of the remedial works required and that is my concern at the moment and it sounds as if it is Jackie Dunbar's concern too.
I am aware that the Council are carrying-out visual inspection reports and settlement checks, but these checks are not permissible under EC7 and the Council are only inviting really serious problems upon themselves by continuing to do this. The as-built design must be reviewed by a geotechnical expert and that is the only compliant solution to the situation that you are in at the moment. Visual inspection reports are not good enough, I'm afraid.
So, if the Council just fully answer Jackie Baillie's letter of 2/8/18 (attached), that will give Jackie Dunbar a good fighting chance of successfully completing her investigation on time. If the Council continues to ignore this then, as Bob Matheson says below, that puts the Council in a pretty shameful position.
I have no need to be copied into your response as I have no authority in this situation. My role is that of a whistle-blower that makes a public interest disclosure for all of the rest of you to investigate and I trust that is clear to you.
Finally, I attach the opinions of the American Society of Civil Engineers geotechnical experts which are referred to, both by Jackie Baillie and Bob Matheson. These opinions have always appeared to me to comfortably outweigh anything provided by the other side, but I will let you be the judge of that.
ReplyDeleteDate: 30/1/19
Hi Jackie (Baillie),
Thanks again for your help on this.
I have to say, I find their response incredibly disappointing.
Centrally, they have not engaged at all with the point put forward in your letter about visual inspections being completely inadequate in this situation. This is not just the view of Stephen, this is (or should be) the view of all those working for the Scottish Government (through the Cole report, which they commissioned). Even non-Engineers can grasp this point, and so the complete absence of a response to it can only mean an intent to ignore the problem in my opinion. If this is the case then that is pretty shameful.
There is much else to bemoan about the letter too (6 month[!] delay; no answers to the questions put forward in pts.2-4; no acknowledgement of the ASCE comments; and a completely inappropriate tone taken to whistleblowing, through the troublemaking allusions made about Stephen). I know that Stephen will also have many more technical objections.
I wonder, though, whether the visual inspection point is the clearest line of interrogation for the meantime?
What do you think the best way to proceed with this is? A question in Parliament? A meeting with yourself, the council, and Stephen?
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI respond to your Email yesterday when you stated that the Scottish Government had no locus in this dispute. Undernoted are the minutes of my meeting with the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore and Bill Dodds on 17/8/16. This is evidence of the Scottish Government's locus.
This is whistle-blowing and this information explains the importance of listening, taking them seriously and investigating what they say. I was fortunate in that I have been supported over the years by Protect and by the ASCE and you are fortunate that I elected to persist for as long as I have, otherwise the potential costs would have been very much greater, especially in the event of a sudden collapse.
There seems little doubt that the Scottish Government are responsible for paying for everything and I say that regardless of what Harper MacLeod are telling you.
As you know, I wish to agree a settlement and return to work and I was expecting Mr McAteer to call me yesterday and he didn't do that. Can you make sure that he calls me on Monday, please? Let me be very clear: this has cost me a great deal of money and it shouldn't have cost me anything and it is your responsibility to resolve it for me. If you wish clarity on the subject of locus, you will notice that Mr McAteer attended the 17/8/16 meeting.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteApologies I should have included these two letters by the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore earlier. They are from 30/9/16 and 7/10/16 and they are self-explanatory. I trust this clarifies, once and for all, the subject of the Scottish Government's locus for you.
Buro Happold's locus is explained in the letter from 30/9/16 and Ms Dunbar, Mr Allard and Ms Scott will be requiring a great deal of guidance and support from Buro Happold in the coming few days. Their engineer with contractual authority for Brimmond School, is Hugh Mallett.
This is now an absolute mess isn't it? It's a lesson to all, but to you especially, that when you get involved in engineering you must communicate and do your job. Otherwise, the costs can become almost limitless. I want this to be resolved to an outcome on Monday, please.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteIt's always: "Not me"..."I'm too busy"..."I'm not an engineer"..."No-one agrees with you"..."You're sending me too many Emails"..."Speak to someone else"..."You do it". Everything needs to be reiterated a minimum of twenty times and still, nothing gets done.
Mr McAteer is a senior criminal lawyer, an Advocate, and he attended my meeting with Mr Moore. Mr Moore is an employee of the Scottish Government and that is the Scottish Government's "locus". Could it be any clearer? No, I don't think it could. What do the others think?
The meeting was minuted. The minutes were agreed and are trailing below. If you, or anyone else, requires further guidance on this, can I suggest that you ask Mr McAteer as he was there at the time!
If Mr Moore had taken myself, and Mr McAteer seriously and investigated properly as we suggested, this would have been settled in 2016 and would probably have been paid for by the Contractor's insurance. So, it has been a needless disaster. (I seem to have said that a great many times to you now)
Ms Dunbar MSP now has the task of trying to lead this to a conclusion over the next 6-weeks and I admire her honesty and gumption. She represents the public interest and she has considerable authority to do that and it would be unwise for any of you to ignore her because the public reaction to that will be entirely negative.
My involvement is now over. I have asked to speak to Mr McAteer tomorrow (Monday) and I have asked to attend a final settlement meeting, presumably with Mr McAteer, either tomorrow or very shortly thereafter. It is very important to me that I return to work and I want to discuss that, along with everything else, personally with Mr McAteer.
If all that is delaying that meeting from taking place is the subject of "locus" then there is nothing delaying it, is there? As I understand it, Mr McAteer needs to be instructed by the Scottish Government to reach a settlement with me, which will be paid for by them, which I will accept. That is all that I am asking you to do for me and so can you please do that.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteThe situation is as follows:
You told me that the Scottish Government believe that they have no locus and I responded by explaining that they do have a locus. I have explained it several times now and I presume that everyone else accepts it?
The Scottish Government thus becomes liable for all costs arising - that is my costs and the costs of fixing the school, if indeed it can be fixed.
When Edinburgh City Council investigated the safety of 17No schools back in 2015, they did not refer back to letters and visual inspection reports that were issued months beforehand. They started from scratch and assessed the safety of all of these schools within six-days and that took a lot of man-hours and communication between all of the parties that were involved. Jackie Dunbar has six-weeks to determine the safety of one school and, on the face of it, that should be possible. If she fails, and I suspect that may happen, then I have made in clear to you in my previous Email who the public will blame for that.
I have asked you to arrange the final closing meeting between myself and Mr McAteer tomorrow and it is not within your gift to refuse. You are not the Scottish Government. I have suffered a great deal of financial stress over the course of the past 9-years due to this case, and due to your handling of it and Councillor Jenny Laing's handling of it, and so return to me today with confirmation that you have done as I ask please.
Let me be very, very clear with you, I am expecting to hear from Mr McAteer tomorrow.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteThe letter from Ms Robison that you continually me refer to, from 19/5/23, is attached. As I have explained, several times, all of the three points that she makes in her letter are incorrect:
Point 1: The strategy of monitoring the building for movement is, in terms of EC7, unlawful. That is so because failures due to subsidence occur from the bottom. The collapse of Surfside apartment building in 2021 is a contemporary example of that, but there are others. These collapses are sudden and often without any warning.
Point 2: The statement that the Scottish Government has no locus in my whistle-blowing dispute has been answered, hasn't it? Are we all agreed on that? They do have a locus and it is very, very obvious.
Point 3: The advice that I should remonstrate with the Council to ensure that proper standards are followed is something that I cannot do. No member of the public is able to do this. The Education Scotland Act places that responsibility with the Scottish Government and I have explained that to you.
In the context of an engineering investigation, this letter is as bad as it gets and it would not be acceptable in any country in the world that I am aware of. What that means in a very practical sense is that Brimmond School is an accident waiting to happen.
With respect, I consider that I am wasting my time, and everyone else's time, reiterating the same information time and time and time again, all because the matter was not properly investigated in 2016, by a number of people, including Jonathan Moore, Jenny Laing and by yourself.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
It may be prudent to delegate another MSP to arrange this meeting with Mr McAteer. Otherwise, can you arrange it yourself? It seems possible that Ms Baillie has a vested interest in doing nothing and that doesn't help anyone just now.
I am aware that strict rules prohibit you, or any other MSP, from taking-up Ms Baillie's duties but we are, I would imagine, within the realms of criminal law and the matter is of the most significant public interest.
So, my suggestion to you is: 1. Either instruct Ms Baillie to make the call to Mr McAteer now, or 2. Do it yourself. It is a Labour Party constituency matter and, frankly, I am not interested in dealing with anyone else at this stage.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDelete1. I have asked you to organize a call between myself and Mr McAteer later today and so please ensure that it takes place. The Scottish Government are responsible for paying my losses.
2. Ms Dunbar is now in charge of the investigation. I suggest that the Deputy First Minister's letter of 19/5/23 (sent to you yesterday, but attached again) is withdrawn, otherwise Ms Dunbar's job becomes needlessly difficult.
I wish to leave this investigation now - to be paid, to have those that have assisted me paid, to return to work and get-on with the rest of my life and that is what I have asked for your help with.
The "lesson learned" from this example is that when you are investigating engineering, ask the world-experts and do it straight-away. Then, no matter how long it takes, you must win.
George - It looks like Jackie Baillie and Shona Robison will defend each other until the end. Have we finally reached the bottom, do you think? Is our engineering finally in the 3rd world - micro-managed by a pair of vapid, middle-aged women at Holyrood?
ReplyDeleteDear Ms Merchant,
ReplyDeleteIt is the responsibility of my constituency MSP, Jackie Baillie, to engage with the Scottish Government on my behalf and I have asked Mr Sarwar to ensure that it is done. Frankly, no-one cares how he does it.
Let me explain the concept of whistle-blowing to you: My legal and ethical responsibility as an engineer is to make what is called a "public interest protected disclosure" when I believe that something isn't right and I did that in 2014. That has been the accepted practice in engineering since the 1980's and it is supported by UK law and by governments worldwide.
It is explained in the attachment: "Whistleblowing - The Institution of Structural Engineers".
I have had to carry out the proper engineering investigation of this case myself and I did that because no-one else was willing to do it. That, in my experience, is unprecedented anywhere in the world. I don't if any of the others have experienced this before? Perhaps not.
Therefore, I do not require any further Emails as I see this as an internal matter to be resolved between Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar. I have explained that I am currently waiting for Mr McAteer to call and so kindly make sure that happens now, please.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI do not wish to complicate this chain of Emails and so I will keep this short:
The crux of the matter is the letter of 19/5/23 written by Shona Robison MSP to Jackie Baillie MSP. Point 1 and Point 3 concern the safety of the land and of the safety of the school building itself. Jackie Dunbar MSP is now pursuing these items on behalf of her constituents and so I will now leave that for her.
It is point number 2 that concerns me: It states that the Scottish Government has "no locus" in my protected disclosures dispute. Subsequently, I provided minutes from the 17/8/16 meeting with Mr Dodds and Mr Moore of the Scottish Government and Mr McAteer of Beltrami that proves that the locus exists and Harper MacLeod's Professor Robert Rennie conceded that point in his Email to me of 20/12/19. So, that can now be agreed?
I have asked either yourself, or Ms Baillie, to have this point accepted so that I can be paid and returned to work. As you can imagine, I have lost a considerable amount of income over the years due to the actions of Mr Dodds and Mr Moore and I have asked for that to be re-paid in full and that is a primary concern of mine at the moment.
I was expecting Mr McAteer to call today and he has not done that. Can you therefore explain to me what the problem is? The Scottish Government clearly will not instruct Mr McAteer because to do so will mean that they have to pay me a lot of money. So, presumably, it is either for yourself or Ms Baillie and that is the point we appear to be at now.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI understand that it is Harper MacLeod who are advising the Scottish Government on Brimmond School at the moment and that the Owner, the Chairman and other Partners are working on the case.
Presumably that means that I have been proven correct.
It is crucial is that my interests are represented and supported by an MSP. Jackie Baillie recused herself on 23rd May. She briefly stepped back in and back out again on Sunday, but she clearly wants out.
The process that has been explained to me is that I meet either Mr McAteer or Harper MacLeod and whatever settlement is agreed upon is presented to the Scottish Government, by the MSP. The question that I am asking you is, which MSP? Can you identify who that is going to be, please?
I apologize for the repeated Emails but I do not want you leaving this to Ms Dunbar and myself. This is your responsibility, more than it is mine or hers, and so get involved and lend a hand, please.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI will be speaking to Universal Credit tomorrow about this case and I will copy this Email through to them today, so that they can review it. They are obviously becoming impatient that this case is taking too long, as am I.
Let me set-out what I require you to do for me:
Because I have had to wait until the land started to sink and to flood before I was believed I am now "time barred", meaning that I cannot pursue any legal action. You and Jackie Baillie seem to be unaware of that, but that is the situation. So, I have been blacklisted for the past 9-years and prevented from working but I cannot legally do anything about that.
The required settlement is as follows:
1. Payment for myself.
2. Payment for 3No others including Protect and the American Society of Civil Engineers.
3. A job either in either this country, or overseas.
I have offered to speak to lawyers many times, but a meeting can only take place when it is authorized by the Scottish Government and that is where I require leadership from an MSP. This morning I asked you to give me the name of an MSP that will do that and I am waiting for you to respond
Because my claim is against the Scottish Government, the locus being the 17/8/16 meeting with Jonathan Moore, the Scottish Government need to instruct the lawyer. The lawyer will therefore be acting for the Scottish Government to reach a settlement with me, which will be paid for by them.
The only organizations that I consider are experts are "Protect" and "The American Society of Civil Engineers" and that is why I have requested they be paid for their work.
Please return to me today and let me know what you propose to do. I will be telling Universal Credit tomorrow, that I am waiting on Anas Sarwar.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI sent the undernoted Email to Universal Credit yesterday and I am due to speak to them today at 3.00pm.
They are trying to get me back into work but that is impossible in the construction industry once you have been blacklisted. So, I am in a difficult situation.
I have nevertheless identified a possible job. What I require though is a full vindication of my actions over the past 9-years delivered, not to myself, but to the employer and Universal Credit know who that is.
As the below Email explains, there are 3No items for you sort-out for me and this is one of them, but nothing can be achieved without you leading the way.
The inflection point seems to be the Jonathan Moore meeting of 17/8/16 and whether or not, from that, the Scottish Government has a locus. I think it does mean they have a locus, but Jackie Baillie thinks it doesn't and so we all require an adjudication on that. (It doesn't seem that complex to me)
A decision, delivered before 3.00pm today would be helpful?
I am keeping Jackie Dunbar copied-in for now, but I presume that she is now self-sufficient?
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI spoke to Universal Credit earlier. They want both myself and my wife to look for minimum paid jobs; my wife has found one and has started work already.
Can I suggest that Mr McAteer is consulted to find a solution to this? There appears to be nothing being done just now by either yourself or Ms Baillie.
Life continues for all the rest of us and so kindly hand this over to Mr McAteer. I'm sure that Ms Dunbar will share my absolute dismay at both of you.
George - I know and understand Jackie Baillie's modus-operandi and she is lower than a snake's belly, sadly.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteMs Dunbar has been involved in this case for approximately 5-weeks and in that time she hasn't made any excuses, there isn't time for that, she has just got started and is working. I remember Protect's Bob Matheson telling me that whistleblowing cases should be concluded in less than 8-weeks and that sounds about right in the context of her work so far.
She may ask questions of, for example, Buro Happold, Scottish Building Standards, the Institution of Civil Engineers, Ogilvie Construction, Harper MacLeod, Faithfull and Gould, Aberdeen City Council, Hub and the Health and Safety Executive. I asked the same questions of these bodies and they were reluctant to answer them; most simply refused. Will they answer Ms Dunbar though? - I think they will.
Ms Dunbar is proving that with some honest effort and accountability from an MSP, things start to happen and they can move quickly.
That leaves my situation to be resolved. Explaining anything, to either of you, appears to be a complete waste of time and I have years of experience of trying. I therefore explained the solution that I am looking for directly to Natalie McLaughlin yesterday and asked her to pass it on to Mr McAteer. She will have done that by now. What I am looking for, for myself and others, is no secret of course and all of you are aware of that, but finding a job has been tremendously difficult and so I have spent a lot of time on that and there is a possible solution, but it requires assistance from either Ms Baillie or Mr Sarwar, or both of you, and so kindly set your politics aside and get-on and do your jobs, please?
I have asked Natalie to get started on this today and I am asking you to help her.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI really shouldn't have to repeat everything this often, should I?
Ms Robison said that continuous monitoring of building settlement is underway and my advice to all of you, not just yourself but to the Scottish Government, Scottish Building Standards, Buro Happold, Hub, Aberdeen City Council, Harper MacLeod and the Institution of Civil Engineers was that this is not in fact a compliant legal strategy for dealing with a hydraulic failure of the land. I say hydraulic failure with some degree of certainty as it has been confirmed as so by many distinguished engineers.
The correct strategy has been explained over numerous iterations to all of you, it's explained in EC7, and I do not intend repeating it here.
Secondly, Ms Robison stated that the Scottish Government had no locus in my claim and you have accepted that. The locus is the meeting of 17/8/16 attended by Mr Moore and Mr Dodds of the Scottish Government and Mr McAteer. The minutes of this meeting are, again, trailing. So, that is incorrect too and if my claims were acted upon then, the Contractor's PI insurance would have paid for everything, wouldn't it? Frankly, no-one cares what you or Ms Robison think, minutes are official confirmation of what was said by whom at a meeting and neither of you were at the meeting. Is that accepted?
If you require clarification, ask Mr McAteer - he was there. You can ask him: "Did the Scottish Government have a locus at the meeting?" He will probably say "Yes it did" (that's what I would expect him to say) and that's it - it's over.
Now, kindly ask the Scottish Government to instruct the meeting with Mr McAteer and that will stop wasting all of our time like this. Do that today, please. I would anticipate speaking to Mr McAteer over the course of the weekend.
You are playing games with peoples lives here and you appear to be completely oblivious to that, don't you. I'm sure that many of the others can see that the two simple points I make above are not complex and have been explained to you time and time and time again. The school building is due to reopen at the end of August and so everyone has an extraordinarily tight timeline to work to. This constant repetition of the same nonsense is not acceptable and I have made it clear that I am only interested in speaking to Mr McAteer now.
Dear Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteCan I leave you to take this forward from here and I would ask all other parties copied-in to provide you with the guidance and respect that is appropriate for the situation existing at the moment?
In terms of "locus", all of those listed above have a locus and the first question that will be asked in the event of a structural deformation is: "When were you first made aware of this and what did you do to investigate?"
Dear Natalie,
Can I suggest that Mr McAteer contacts the Scottish Government and explains to them the strategic importance of the meeting with Mr Dodds and Mr Moore of 17/8/16?
As I have explained, I have found a potential job and that has not been easy. I therefore do not want this opportunity to be needlessly lost. I therefore require an explanation and a vindication of my actions over the past 9-years to be delivered to the client and that should be done this weekend. The client, as you know, has knowledge of this case.
As well as the job, I require to be paid for those that have assisted me to be paid also.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteOver-complicating this matter is the last thing that I wish to do at this stage. However, the following opinion was delivered to you, along with many other expert opinions, in November 2017:
"Ir. Selvem Raman ( HYPERLINK "https://www.linkedin.com/in/selvemraman"இரா.செல்வம்) Perhaps, but perhaps differential settlement hasn't started yet! This has to be confirmed through study/assessment. Everything said here will just be based on assumption, based on past 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"
I presume that all of the rest of you have this information? It has been sent to you many, many times over the years, hasn't it? I attach another copy with this Email as perhaps one or two of you haven't seen it before.
This comment explains why the strategy of settlement monitoring cannot be relied upon and EC7 enshrined that into UK law. It is akin to "visual inspection reports" and it is an activity that no serious, ethical client would ever engage in. Why Aberdeen City Council are being allowed to do this, in plain sight of all of you, is something that I find astounding.
As I explained yesterday, I expect this to be resolved to an outcome between myself and Mr McAteer and for that to begin today. I only hope that this case serves as a lesson to all of you that when a whistle-blower steps forward to report a concern, don't cover it up, take it seriously and carry-out a proper investigation straight-away. I look upon this as 9-years of my life, wasted.
Dear Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteMs Baillie referred to previous guidance which was received from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on 2/5/22 and is trailing.
The Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council responded to the questions asked of them by the HSE, thus: "We have had this building checked by numerous qualified engineers and there is no subsidence". Hence, the criteria for the HSE to carry-out an investigation was not met and that was a missed opportunity.
I believe that we are now all agreed that it is "subsidence of the land" which is evident just now and "subsidence of the building" will inevitably follow?
Can I leave it in your hands to determine if the HSE should be consulted again and, if so, by whom?
Alternatively, all guidance that you ask for will be provided to you by Buro Happold.
I am presenting you with information which is crucial and which will assist you to get this matter concluded before the school re-opens in late August. It may seem a lot, but to anyone who has been involved in these investigations before, this is normal.
George - It is unusual for the Scottish Government and a Council to write to the HSE to say that a building has been checked and is safe. It's probably unique, in fact.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI was just checking there and I have sent you about 70No Emails in the past 6-weeks and so I think we can draw it to a close at that and I will leave everything to you now.
This Email contains the key pieces of evidence:
1. The minutes of the 17/8/16 Moore and Dodds meeting.
2. The 2/5/22 letter from HSE.
3. Expert opinions from the ASCE.
I explained my position to Mr McAteer yesterday: when you leave university and buy a car, then get married and buy a house, you have bills to pay and when you have no income for this period of time then life becomes impossible. I have therefore asked him to get me back into work and paid for the past number of years and I have asked him to do that now (that is not as difficult as it sounds).
My last advice to you would be to give Aberdeen City Council and Buro Happold the opportunity to answer your questions and if they refuse to do that, or if they are too slow, report this to the HSE and that can be done either be by yourself, or by a representative of the teachers. My expectation is they will respond to you and they will do it very quickly.
I know that you are faced with the toughest of timelines. Ms Baillie never tires of complaining about the number of Emails that I send and presenting the allusion that it means that I am some kind of troublemaker. In these situations, a great many Emails and phone calls are exchanged every day. Nothing is achieved in a communication vacuum and those copied into this Email know that.
Dear Mr Baker,
ReplyDeleteI refer to the investigation that you carried-out into the safety of Brimmond School in Aberdeen on behalf of Ms Jackie Baillie MSP, in 2022. If you recall, I offered to meet you and explain the situation to you but the authorities with statutory duties for the safety of the building, Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government, both assured you that the school had been checked and was safe. Hence, the HSE investigation could go no further and I accepted that at the time.
The investigation has now been expanded to include contributions from the Institution of Civil Engineers and the design engineers for the project, Buro Happold. I have, in the past few days, handed leadership of the investigation over to Jackie Dunbar MSP who is the constituency MSP for the Aberdeen Donside and so represents the interests of the parents and teachers at the school. I want to hand it over to her without loose ends, so that she has the best chance of successfully concluding before the school re-opens at the end of August.
I have always seen your decision not to carry-out an investigation as a missed opportunity to realize that the land surrounding the school was sinking and flooding and it was a matter of time before the building itself started to show signs of sinking and of structural deformation or partial collapse. These signs could manifest slowly, or very quickly and either is possible but what we can say for certain is that it will happen. That is an explanation of the situation as I and many others see it and it comes from Design Standard EC7.
I had it checked in 2017 by many geotechnical experts at the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and I sent that to you in May 2022. The higher authority replied to you: "Mr Dick is incorrect; we have had this building checked by experts of our own and it is safe". The question for the HSE, and for everyone else at the moment is, have you examined these checks? I have given you my checks and they have been carried-out by named expert engineers who you can contact and question further if you wish, but has the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council done that?
I say this because all of the checks that they have sent me over the past 7-years have all been visual inspection reports and these should not be relied upon and the Cole Inquiry Report made that very clear. It may therefore be well worth asking to see the strength of evidence that exists and which enables this school to be declared safe every year?
Finally, I have received assistance over the course of the past 7-years by the organization "Protect" and presumably they have remained involved because they too have a real concern regarding the safety of this building. Their Bob Matheson said the following of Brimmond School on 30/11/22:
"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."
I wish to leave this investigation in the hands of Ms Dunbar and there is no need for the HSE to respond to me, but there may be a need for the HSE to question some of the other parties involved here? Essentially, what I am asking the HSE to do is offer assistance to Ms Dunbar, if she asks for it, in the days and weeks ahead. I attach another copy of the ASCE expert opinions with this Email and if it is this document, versus a handful of visual inspection reports, then this are what we all go by?
I suspect that some also require guidance on how to treat whistle-blowers respectfully. I will leave that to you?
George: "As you are aware, this approach was rejected by Ms Robison, who said that a monitoring programme is in place to evaluate the structure of the disputed school building. She also advised that the Scottish Government had been consistently assured by Aberdeen City Council that your assertions over the construction of this site are “incorrect”." We'll get it properly checked now.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteFurther to the weekend's Emails, you can now leave the safety of the school to be determined by the following:
1. Ms Jackie Dunbar.
2. The Health and Safety Executive.
3. Aberdeen City Council.
4. The Scottish Government.
Ms Dunbar will now receive expert guidance when she asks for it and authoritative support when she asks for it and she will not be left to do everything on her own, as I have been.
As you know, I have had to go to Universal Credit for the first time in my life and I will copy this Email to them later today. I am speaking to them again on Wednesday and so I would appreciate having this resolved before then?
I have found a possible job and the prospective employer requires to know what I have been doing for the past 9-years and whether I have been vindicated in spending this amount of time on it.
I have asked Mr McAteer to do this for me and I have asked you to do it for me and no-one has responded! So, can I ask again please because this is clearly very important. Mr McAteer has the contact details of the prospective employer.
As far as payment of my losses over the past 9-years is concerned, liability for that lies with the Scottish Government and that position is supported by the minutes of the Moore and Dodds meeting of 17/8/16, which was attended by Mr McAteer.
So, concluding these two matters is all that I am asking you to do and so can you do that please?
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteThe way this works is that the school re-opening date, which I believe is the third week in August, sets the timeline and everyone works back from that.
This means that at the stage we are at now you cannot delay, or refuse to communicate. As a parliamentarian, your contribution is crucial and I have made that point to you many times over the years.
The more onerous task lies with Ms Dunbar and we can leave her to organize that, as she wishes.
There are two urgent items that I asked you to do for me and, to do them, you liaise with the Scottish Government and with Mr McAteer:
1. Reference.
2. Outcome Settlement.
Can you update me on where we stand on these two items please?
I will clarify what "locus" means in the context of this investigation, because I notice that you refer to it regularly: If Aberdeen City Council continue to do nothing other than monitor the building for settlement and it collapses suddenly and several members of the public are killed, a criminal investigation will follow and Mr Moore will be asked to explain the meeting of 17/8/16, his letters of 30/9/16 and 7/10/16 and his decision not to carry-out a proper investigation at the time. He, and his employer the Scottish Government, will therefore have a "locus" in any future criminal investigation and, ergo, they have a locus in this investigation. Are we all agreed on that? It is time we clarified this matter once and for all as it has been used as a constant excuse for the past seven-years, erroneously in my view.
As you know, I am meeting Universal Credit tomorrow (Wednesday) and I need to report on item 1, to them because there will be no job without a reference. From my perspective, this case is now over and I am looking to return to work and to be paid my losses. I can take action myself and I have done as much as I can, but it requires you to do your job now and so can you advise me what you are doing today, please.
Dear Ms Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI spoke to Universal Credit earlier and I suggested to them that this can and needs to be resolved immediately. So, not in a week or a month, but now. They, of course, support that position.
If everyone just does their job and communicates, that will allow the problem to be understood and a solution to be found? I will copy this through to Universal Credit so that they are reassured that I am continuing to press all of you for a solution.
In terms of timescale, Edinburgh City Council reviewed the safety of 17No schools in 6-days and so there is nothing complex about this and I presume the inclusion of the HSE's Mr Baker in the circulation adds an injection of much needed urgency to all of you.
As I make clear below, there was no reason for this to have occurred and it can only be remedied by my MSP. Ms Baillie doesn't want to do it, but it needs to be done and so can you both agree, between yourselves, who is going to do this for me, please?
As far as my future job is concerned, Mr McAteer has the details of that and so kindly communicate with him and make sure that it happens. Any future employer will not employ anyone who is embroiled in a dispute of this nature and so make it clear that this is over for me and responsibility has now been passed-on to others.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDelete1. The decision of Aberdeen City Council, supported by the Scottish Government, is to carry-out settlement monitoring of the building and I have pointed-out to you that that is unlawful. Is that accepted?
2. If the school is being certified every year as safe, based upon settlement monitoring, that amounts to "reckless certification". Is that accepted?
3. A "limit state failure of the land", a "GEO limit state failure", has already occurred and that requires geotechnical expert guidance. The only geotechnical expert guidance available to you is from the ASCE and none of them say the building is safe. Is that accepted?
4. You told me that the Scottish Government has refused to pay for my loss of earnings because they have no "locus". I have explained the locus to you, and that Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government directly caused my loss of earnings and I have done that several times. Is that accepted?
5. Bob Matheson, of Protect, stated in 30/11/22 that there was a "prima facie case of significant risk to the public" presented by Brimmond School. You clearly disagree with that opinion, but what is your disagreement based upon?
Both yourself and Ms Robison are clearly at odds with many of the most respected experts in world engineering and I am not convinced that either you realize that, sadly.
Kindly answer the points 1-5 above so that we at last get to the end of this matter. The school opens again approximately 4-weeks from now and there clearly isn't time for this!
Dear Mr Sarwar and Mr Baker,
ReplyDeleteCan I suggest the following:
1. The arbiter for the safety of the school, is the HSE?
2. The arbiter for the meeting of 17/8/16 and whether that constitutes a locus, is Mr McAteer (who attended the meeting)?
We have too many vested interests to allow this to continue. Ms Baillie and Ms Robison clearly have no intention of finding a solution.
Dear Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteFurther to Ms Baillie's Email below:
Can I leave the safety of the school entirely with yourself and the HSE now?
The problem that I have faced since being terminated by the Contractor in 2016, is that I had all authority removed from me and that means the various parties involved can disregard me and there is nothing I can do about that. The same goes for the experts of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) - Ms Baillie can elect to ignore them too if she wishes and, as you can see, she has done that for the past five and a half years.
It would help enormously if Scotland respected whistle-blowing legislation but if Harper MacLeod don't respect it, then perhaps no law firm will properly respect it and that leads directly-on to the disaster we have here. It's cause and effect, isn't it. If you recall, Professor Cole was dead against relying on lawyers in engineering because they inevitably end-up closing down all communication. It seems like the normal default position for them.
The ASCE advice exits to help ASCE members who are working worldwide. It's free, it's good advice from the best engineers in the world and it is respected by governments everywhere - except in Scotland. Here, and despite of everything that has gone-on in the recent past including, but not limited to, collapsing schools, we still rely on visual inspection reports for everything.
You have authority vested in you by your constituents. There is also a Contract and the various bodies involved, principally Buro Happold, must provide the information you ask for under the Contract. I can give you information, but I cannot give you the support you need and that can only come, at this point, from the HSE and I have asked them to do that.
Dear Ms Baillie,
I will leave item 2 to be dealt with by Mr McAteer if I may, who is an Advocate lawyer.
The minutes of the 17/8/16 meeting are trailing below. I must have sent this to you at least twenty times over the years?
This constitutes a formal, accepted record of exactly what was said, by whom, at the meeting of 17/8/16. These minutes were published the day after the meeting; they weren't amended by anyone and so ergo they were accepted by all of the parties that were involved in the meeting, and that included Mr McAteer, and that is the accepted, worldwide protocol for meetings.
Does this mean that the Scottish Government has a "locus" in my dispute over loss of income? Yes it does. I hope that is very clear to you, and to Ms Robison, because you have both said that it doesn't and you have done that repeatedly. It is obviously incorrect isn't it? I have been unemployed almost continually since 17/8/16 because of what? Your decision, albeit a joint decision, has cost me a lot of money and so I would appreciate your answer. Ms Robison has been involved for a number of months but you have been involved for 7-years and so this is more your fault than it is her fault.
I recall explaining to you the Shirley McKie case of approximately 2005 where the then FM, Jack McConnell, insisted that the Scottish Government's finger-print service were honest and incapable of getting anything wrong. His denials went-on for years, didn't they, just like your denials have been going-on for years. Shirley McKie had been accused of leaving a finger-print at a crime scene, which she always denied doing. She was almost bankrupted by it all. Mike Russell MSP, her constituency MSP, refused to accept Jack McConnell's assurances and took advice from two independent American fingerprint experts that both said that the Scottish finger-print service had got it wrong. It turns out, the two Americans were right and the Scottish fingerprint service and the Scottish Government had got it wrong. You have advice from more than forty American experts - and you have done absolutely nothing with that advice have you? I find that disappointing and the service that I have received from you is nothing like the service that Shirley McKie received from Mike Russell. Constituency MSP's exist for a reason; Mike Russell did his job very well and that's the point I am making.
ReplyDeleteMy earlier comment today regarding vested interests comes from your letter to Councillor Laing of 2/8/18 and her reply to you of 25/1/19. There have been several missed opportunities to solve this case early-on, when the Contractor's PI Insurance would (conceivably) have paid for everything. Had Councillor Laing's letter to you been issued on 25/8/18, instead of 25/1/19 and had it answered all (or any) of the questions asked by you, then I think it is fair to say that we would all be in an entirely different situation now. You may say that none of it is your fault and that none of it is Councillor Laing's fault either, but that is not the way I see it.
I have put a lot of work into this over the years, but I cannot overcome vested interests and if this is the way Holyrood deals with engineering problems, then God help us all.
I presume that item 2 can be left to Mr McAteer? Please confirm with Ms Robison that this is acceptable because I discussed ending this immediately with Universal Credit today and so I do not want any more needless delays. What I am asking for is a reference and an outcome settlement.
Dear Natalie,
Presumably Mr McAteer has all of the information he requires? If not, ask him to contact me please?
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI understand that a list MSP may be able to progress this to an outcome on my behalf? Can you take positive action with your parliamentary colleagues to get this concluded, because all others are taking this seriously at the moment.
Frankly, it doesn't look to me as if either yourself or Ms Baillie have any concept of how serious this is. Chronic inaction has allowed this to turn into an absolute mess, hasn't it?
Let me know what you propose to do, please?
George: I understand it's getting blamed on the lawyers. I'm still waiting to hear it confirmed.
ReplyDeleteSomeone will be the donkey that the tail is pinned on. Wonder whoever gets it suddenly retires?
DeleteSadly, it will not be Professor Rennie. There are other Professors though?
DeleteDear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteAs set-out trailing, Councillor Laing's letter of 25/1/19 is the point at which the investigation was closed-down. Bob Matheson of Protect issued his reaction to it on 28/1/19, with his suggestions for progressing it, but Ms Baillie didn't respond.
Neither Councillor Laing, nor Ms Baillie are competent to be adjudicating on these matters but, nevertheless, that was the end of the investigation. (The original letters by Ms Baillie and Ms Laing are attached)
With the school due to re-open in 4-weeks time and with a new investigative team in place, there will be many Emails and phone calls going back and forth just now and, as you know, I am seeking my removal from the investigative process.
All that I require in order to do that is a reference and an outcome settlement to be provided by the Scottish Government, via my MSP and I have provided all the information required for that to be done.
So far, I have heard nothing from Ms Baillie, nothing from yourself and nothing from Mr McAteer. The investigation has lasted this long because parliamentarians have failed to do what was asked of them and I presume this is a continuation of the same?
Engineering is being left to the experts. This is admin and so can I ask that you just get it done, please? Like Ms Baillie and Councillor Laing, you appear to me to be hoping that if you ignore this for long enough, it will go-away?
Dear Ms Scott,
ReplyDeleteWhilst we all wait on My Sarwar, I attach the trailing video: Ethics Case Study 2, by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (Where would we all be just now without the ASCE?)
This describes "Safety Culture" and it is presented by an engineer who has had a lifetime's experience in that field. I have sent this to Ms Baillie multiple times over the years but it is appropriate that I send it to all of you at this point.
My earlier comment to Mr Sarwar was: "Like Ms Baillie and Councillor Laing, you appear to me to be hoping that if you ignore this for long enough, it will go-away?" This is a legitimate observation and it is explained within the first couple of minutes of the video.
The position that: "It is an engineer's duty to put the safety of the public before their own career development", is dealt with in the last couple of minutes and we can perhaps agree that this example has now tested that advice to beyond breaking-point.
This is one of the foremost safety videos in world engineering and it seems to me to fit the current situation very well. Plus, I expect that you and your colleagues at the Council are attuned to the lessons of Piper Alpha?
Ethics Case Study 4 has again been sent to Ms Baillie multiple times over the years. The point it makes is that you cannot simply give the impression that engineering has been checked and is safe. It has to be properly checked and proven to be safe and "settlement monitoring" fails to do that. If you continue as you are and an accident occurs, then the situation changes dramatically for everyone.
A certain amount of engineering rigour is now required and, as the ASCE experts demonstrated in 2017, that doesn't take long to do.
George - I'm hoping to have this finalized before Friday and the nightmare will be over. I have named the 4No people that I hold responsible for this. I heard a few weeks ago that Jackie Baillie had been awarded a Damehood? In any other circumstances that would be quite funny.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the outrage at this sham investigation into child abuse?
ReplyDeletehttps://childabuseinquiry.scot/
These animals are supposed to be under investigation by the Scottish child abuse inquiry.
Dr Guthrie’s Schools Association
Dr Guthrie’s Boys School, Edinburgh
Dr Guthrie’s Girls School, Edinburgh
These are the financial statements of Dr. Guthrie's Association for the calendar year ended 31 March 2022. https://www.oscr.org.uk/charityDocuments/2022-10-25-accs-re-sc009302-redacted-9e50d48a-393f-ed11-bba2-0022481b5171.pdf
These people don't appear to be bothered in the slightest by the fact that they are the subject of numerous police investigations, solicitor letters, and the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry. Why? I have no idea.
If you scroll down in the PDF, you will see that Dr. Guthrie's Association donated money to two well-known child abuse charities. They have also spent £44,000 on legal fees.
These are the same people who have not apologised to any of the survivors of abuse in Dr. Guthrie's schools and who refuse to take responsibility for the abuse that took place in Dr. Guthrie's schools. The same people who have made no contribution to the redress scheme
Scotland's child abuse investigation list includes Dr. Guthrie's schools. Well, I thought it did. The fact that the child abuse charities actually accepted the donation is something I find difficult to understand.
Is it acceptable to abuse children who attended a Dr. Guthrie school?
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I have been waiting for several months on the Scottish Government's determination on whether it has a "locus" in this dispute. Shona Robison and Jackie Baillie keep saying that it doesn't and I say that it does.
I have already provided the minutes of Meeting 1, of 17/8/16, attended by Bill Dodds and Jonathan Moore, which is evidence that the Scottish Government has a locus several times to Ms Baillie and she hasn't responded.
I therefore attach the minutes of Meeting 2, of 23/5/19, attended by the Scottish Government's Stephen Garvin and Scott Johnston. Mr Garvin carried-out his own minor amendments to the minutes and he accepted them by Email on 4/6/19. This is the record of that meeting and it is yet further evidence of locus.
Ms Robison and Ms Baillie's joint position would therefore be instantly dismissed by Construction Law Courts worldwide. So, the position is: The Scottish Government does have a locus - is that clear to everyone?
My wife and I have been attending Universal Credit for the past 6-weeks and neither they, nor I, can understand why this delay is occurring.
I am expecting all of my losses to be paid and for me to be returned to work by the end of this week and the responsibility is upon you to manage that situation.
George - When you say that: "I have checked this and I accept the Contractor's work" - then what you are effectively doing is taking the responsibility off the Contractor's shoulders and putting it on your own shoulders. That is what the Scottish Government has done. They are responsible for paying for everything. I've been saying this for years, haven't I. This is the last thing you should do, but they did it straight away and that is why this process has been so tortuous.
ReplyDeleteI guess most of the time when people sign off stuff, they never give it a second's thought that this will come back to bite them on the arse. Clearly due diligence has gone out the window.
DeleteWhen the ASCE experts say that something isn't right, then that's a slam-dunk. Get it fixed. (This vapid bunch are just finding-out now).
DeleteDear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that everything that I send to you is met with complete silence and that is not acceptable. I am being sent Emails by Universal Credit and I have to answer them, otherwise I do not get paid and so can I make the following suggestion which may help move this forward:
1. I have given details of the job that I am applying for to Mr McAteer. This vacancy, if it still exists, will not remain open for long. Can I suggest that this is just handed-over, by the Scottish Government, to Mr McAteer with an instruction that he proceeds and gets it finalized to an outcome?
2. Mr McAteer is aware of the financial attrition that I have suffered since 2014 and so he can be left to finalize payment to me. There are other bodies, for example "Protect" and the "American Society of Civil Engineers", that I have also requested receive payment for their advice.
3. I presume that with the school due to re-open in less than 4-weeks from now, the stability of the building and of the land is being dealt with by Ms Dunbar and Ms Scott? All that I will say is that guidance should be given only by those authorised under the Contract and that, as I understand it, is Hugh Mallet of Buro Happold.
That seems to me to be all that there is to say. I have made it very clear that ownership of this situation does not lie with myself and I am asking you to ensure that I am removed from it completely, by Friday.
So, with 4-weeks to go, someone with gumption just needs to ask Hugh Mallett: "Could Brimmond School collapse just like the Hyatt Regency did in 1981". Hugh Mallett will say: "Yes, it could". The person with gumption will reply: "Why the fuck didn't you tell us all that 9-years ago?"
ReplyDeleteI expect to be back working again and to be paid and to get all others, including yourself, paid too. Jackie Dunbar has done a fine job as a constituency MSP and I wouldn't be surprised if the HSE have gotten themselves involved somehow.
Who will the someone with gumption be? The someone with gumption that is going to ask Hugh Mallett the $64,000 question? I asked him years ago, probably 6-years ago and he refused to answer. So, someone needs to corner the old-bastard and do it now.
He has disgraced his profession, sadly. Not the only profession that has been disgraced of course but to allow this to go-on as he has for this length of time with all of the collateral damage that has caused is unforgivable, frankly.
George - I think I should make this delay as uncomfortable for them, as it is for me?
ReplyDeleteI keep making the analogy between Brimmond School and the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981. People often ask: "Why didn't anyone go to jail as a result of Hyatt?"
The engineer who said he checked the design change (but didn't) was Dan Duncan. Both he and his MD, Jack Gillum, were found guilty of "Violating the Practice Act" and had their licences to practice engineering revoked by the ASCE, but neither went to jail.
The explanation that I recall was that there had been no attempt at the proceedings to claim that Mr Duncan and Mr Gillum should have been aware that any error in design could lead to deaths. Had that been alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt, then both probably would have gone to jail.
The Brimmond case is different in that in has been in the Press and the last time it was in the Press, the statement that was attributed to the whistle-blower was that a collapse could occur. It would be reasonable to assume that, at that point, Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government would pick-up the phone and ask: "Is this true?" They would be expected to have checked with the technical team and to have their response to that specific allegation in writing.
When buildings collapse, even if it's only a partial collapse, people are usually killed and so the situation is fundamentally different at Brimmond School because of that.
By the way, the Watergate proceedings took place at roughly this period in time and approximately 40No people went to jail as a result of that. No-one was killed at Watergate and so punishments don't always fit the crime and it just depends what charges can be brought.
At Brimmond, there is an engineer equivalent to Dan Duncan and he has a UK MD equivalent to Jack Gillum. The similarities in the two cases are not slight, they are obvious. You are not an engineer, but you are resourceful and so they will be obvious to you. My advice to both, who are no doubt both great engineers, would be: "Forget your lawyers, forget your excuses and just do your job".
Jack Gillum was a fascinating character and a great engineer He finished his career working in Saudi Arabia, as I have done. He spent a great deal of his time educating young engineering students about the lessons of Hyatt. So far, I don't see that honesty from anyone involved here. All are fixated on holding on to their jobs, their reputations and their money.
The US tended to banish engineers who they term "delinquent engineers" to Saudi Arabia and Scotland banishes "whistle-blowers" to Saudi Arabia. That's how it looks, so far? Jack Gillum designed the University of Riyadh which I know very well.
I will keep you informed of course. You, the "American Society of Civil Engineers" and "Protect" are all due to be paid for your work.
lull before the storm
DeleteThere are a great number of vested interests and I'm sure you worked that out long ago.
DeleteHowever, it is worth isolating Jackie Baillie and the ICE at this point.
George,
ReplyDeleteWhere does the Scottish Government stand on this just now? The last letter I received, from Shona Robison, was on 15/5/23 and it made two points:
1. Settlement of the building was being monitored and, so far, there had been no movement to report.
2. The Scottish Government have no locus in my whistle-blowing dispute and so they don't owe me any money.
Point 1 has now been taken-up by Jackie Dunbar. What I have advised her to say is that a hydraulic failure of the land has occurred and that requires a full design check by Hugh Mallett of Buro Happold. Carrying out settlement monitoring instead of doing that, is unlawful.
Point 2 was answered by sending the minutes of two meetings that I attended with senior Scottish Government officers, to Jackie Baillie. This proves the Scottish Government not only has a locus, but that they caused the present situation to occur. In fact, no-one else is involved.
When I made both of these points to Jackie Baillie, she rescinded herself from any further involvement in my case, meaning that I have no parliamentary representation at this most crucial time.
I then contacted Anas Sarwar, several times, saying: "This is urgent, can you help me with this?" He hasn't responded.
Because the school is due to open again soon and because of Jackie Dunbar's involvement , possible HSE involvement and the involvement of the CEO at Aberdeen City Council, the case has developed a pressure of its own and it will be solved.
If it had been left to Jackie Baillie and Anas Sarwar though, that very clearly wouldn't have happened and that is a problem.
Dear Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI do not forward everything on to Universal Credit, but I am going to forward this in order to assure them that I am continuing to press you both for an outcome.
We have reached the stage where all aspects of the safety and stability of the land and of the building are being investigated by Ms Dunbar. That is a lot to ask of one MSP in the time available to her, but I presume that she is being assisted by the Health and Safety Executive, by Mr Mallett at Buro Happold and by Ms Scott at Aberdeen City Council.
I copy-in Ms Winfield as I have advised Ms Dunbar that the only engineer able to review the contractor's design change is Hugh Mallett. Many others, including myself, have reviewed it already but only Mr Mallett is contractually authorized to do so and I presume that to be the correct contractual position.
That leaves my situation to be resolved and the Deputy First Minister in her letter to Ms Baillie of 19/5/23 (attached) stated that the Scottish Government had "no locus" in my claim for payment of financial losses and a job. I have replied to this, several times now, citing the meetings of 17/8/16 and 22/5/19. The minutes of both meetings are again attached; this is the locus as the gentlemen involved in these meetings were senior employees of the Scottish Government.
Mr McAteer attended one of the two meetings and he will no doubt be able to provide authoritative guidance to you. If I am correct, then the Scottish Government is responsible for paying my losses and finding me a job. I understand that you don't agree with that and Ms Robison doesn't agree with it either, but we are discussing legal protocol and that, in this case, can only be decided by Mr McAteer and I have explained this to you several times already.
So, if we allow Mr McAteer to speak for the lawyers and Mr Mallett to speak for the engineers we may start to get somewhere and reach an outcome that everyone can agree on. What little has been produced at Holyrood over that time has always been wrong and so no more, please.
This issue is of the utmost importance to me and my family and I would ask both of you think about that it terms of the ethical code that I sent you at the weekend (ASCE Ethics Case Studies 2 and 4). Have I done my job? Yes I have and so it is time for you to do your job and that is the way it works, worldwide - no exceptions.
I will be speaking to Universal Credit again on Friday morning and I expect to be able to report an outcome to them. The subject matter is incredibly grave for the constituents of Ms Dunbar of course, but it is of a wider significance than that and so I await your response.
Finally, if you believe that the blacklisting of an innocent member of the public is something that you, as parliamentarians, do not need to do anything about, that you can just allow it to continue, then what do you think the public's reaction to that would be?
I am expecting to be working again and to have been paid all of the money owed to me, by the beginning of next week.
Dear Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteUndernoted is confirmation of my appointment time tomorrow, just received. I therefore require a response by the end of today. You have both had long enough to sort this out.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI spoke to Universal Credit a short time ago and I explained that there was nothing more that I can do and that I was waiting on my MSP resolving this for me. Representing constituents' interests is what MSP's are for and that is what I am asking you to do.
In 2017 I gave you access to many expert engineers via the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and in 2018 I gave you access to expert whistle-blowing lawyers via Protect. Nevertheless, you have elected to follow your own path and in doing that you may well have set the seeds for a future disaster at the school. You may see it differently but, speaking as an engineer, that is the unmistakable reality that I see in front of me.
I copy-in the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) as their prevarications over "Visual Inspection Reports" - pre the Cole Inquiry: "they are acceptable", at the Cole Inquiry: "they are not acceptable", at Brimmond School: "they are acceptable" and finally: "we do not have an opinion" - have been disappointing. Professor Cole was very clear when he warned all Councils against relying upon Visual Inspection Reports in 2017 and Audit Scotland reiterated the message at the time. Especially when the matter is so pivotal, literally to life or death, perhaps the ICE should be prepared to take the lead on this matter? My experience has been that the ASCE would be more forthright in doing so.
My wife is working irregular hours, up until 10.00pm on some days and at weekends to compensate for my lost earnings and that is not acceptable. I am therefore asking you to ensure that I am returned to employment and paid my losses by the Scottish Government and justification for that position is explained in the trailing Email and I have had to reiterate this same indisputable information many times over the past months.
Can I suggest that I speak to Mr McAteer later today? This can only be facilitated by the Scottish Government as all responsibilities lie with them and so can you ask for that to be done now, please?
I am copying this Email to Universal Credit.
George - Dr Andrew Bond is the UK Delegate on the EC7 Committee. EC7 (which stands for Eurocode 7) was introduced in the UK about 10-years ago and it replaced the old British Standard for designing foundations in different soil conditions.
ReplyDeleteWe resolve this to an outcome by asking Dr Bond. He will answer to the Scottish Government, the Health and Safety Executive, Aberdeen City Council, Audit Scotland and the Teaching Unions. To either of them, or to all of them. Just ask him - he sees it as a crucial part of the service provided by his organization.
I (together with many others) have said that when the land starts sinking and flooding, the whole design has to be checked again "very quickly". The Scottish Government says "no". It says that you only have to monitor the building for movement. Is it not about time we had this question answered by an expert?
Dr Bond is the UK's Chief Engineer; on this subject anyway. His opinion is a hell of a lot more credible than Shona Robison's opinion and Jackie Baillie's opinion.
George - I understand that settlement monitoring was suggested, to Aberdeen City Council, by an "asset reliability engineer". They do this in the North Sea where oil and gas drilling platforms are designed to move, but not too much. It is not applicable to a school however. Dr Bond will be able to guide them on this.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDelete"It is the responsibility of the professional engineer to put the safety of the public before there own career development - ASCE". This has taken 9-years and it has been a waste of my career and my family's life. You may well ask if you could have done more, as Mike Russell MSP did for Shirley McKie for example; it wasn't that difficult.
Mr McAteer did not call on Friday and that was disappointing. Has the Scottish Government's "locus" in this case been proven? Yes it has. Therefore, please instruct them to finalize my settlement and job. I will communicate with Mr McAteer, of course I will, but he needs to call me and so organize that via the Scottish Government as soon as possible, please.
As before, I am copying this letter to Universal Credit.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteI just received the following letters from Jackie Dunbar MSP this morning. She has been pursuing the matter of the safety of the building and the land surrounding it for the past 8-weeks with Aberdeen City Council and with the school due to re-open in less than 3-weeks from now, she has been given the same response by the Council that they have sent to me in the past and that is disappointing.
Also disappointing is the constant allusion, which has been made consistently over the past 9-years by this Council, that I am somehow a trouble-maker. If I have been incorrect, then that is a fair criticism to make but if I have been correct, and it is perhaps obvious to all of you that I have been correct, then it is pretty disgraceful behaviour. The trailing Email to the Council's lawyers Harper MacLeod is from 13/9/14 and the engineering case first reported by me then, has never changed and so please ensure that it is answered. Should this really take 9-years?
I am obviously wanting to leave this investigation now. However, I will answer the points made and leave the rest of you to take forward the investigation from this point:
1. Essentially, the Council are continuing to rely on Visual Inspection Reports by structural engineers and we all know that is not acceptable. The only engineer with contractual authority to determine if the contractor's amended design of this school is safe, is Hugh Mallett of Buro Happold. So, it is a design review, on the amended design, by Hugh Mallett that everyone is waiting for. Has that been provided yet? Has the Council asked for it to be provided? Have any of the rest of you asked the Council for it?
2. The school design must comply with Design Standard EC7 and that advises against carrying-out Visual Inspection Reports. The settlement monitoring that the Council have been carrying out doesn't comply with EC7 and is something that is (usually) carried-out on structures that are intended to be flexible as a means of establishing their "resilience" and they are not an appropriate means of determining the safety of a rigid structure, like a school building. Is that accepted by everyone?
3. Subsidence failure is a failure from the bottom and so it is the condition of the land with respect to moisture content and the extent to which it is flooding with groundwater and sinking that ought to be determined just now. That can either be done by Hugh Mallett or by Dr Nigel Turner of Fairhurst and Partners of Aberdeen. Neither of these gentlemen are interested in the settlement of the building, which will be affected some time after subsidence of the ground. Is that accepted?
4. There is obviously a fundamental disagreement in the way the Council sees EC7 working and the way I see it working and this should not be the case. Can I suggest that you contact the UK's delegate on the EC7 Committee, Dr Andrew Bond. It is his job to clarify misunderstandings on the way EC7 works. That approach would perhaps be best made by the Institution of Civil Engineers, or the Health and Safety Executive?
ReplyDeleteIn order to maintain the public's trust in our engineering, it is crucial that we are able to freely question the output of everyone's work and so I will leave the above for Buro Happold. They are a UK expert in civil engineering and have looked very closely at this project and at the comments made by others and they are contractually obligated to advise the Council whether I am correct, or not. I expect them to say that I am correct.
Dear Ms Baillie,
The matter of the safety of the school can be left for all of the others to agree from here. The timeline is set by the opening date for the school and so they can all be left to manage themselves and we do not need to get involved.
My only concern at this point is achieving a settlement from the Scottish Government and a return to work. As you can appreciate, no member of the public is able to sustain the level of attrition that I, and my wife, have had to sustain over the past 9-years. The Scottish Government's liability is explained in the meeting minutes, which you have, from 17/8/16 and 22/5/19 with Scottish Building Standards.
I was expecting a call from Mr McAteer on Friday and that didn't happen. Can you sort this out now please so that I can be released?
With the Rutherglen by-election expected to be announced last Tuesday night, all parties will be soley focused on this event. I expect everything else will be pushed off the agenda.
ReplyDelete