Organisations such as the BBC have shown during covid and during the recent Andrew Tate interview that they do not act in our interests. Anyone who doesn't conform is de-plaformed, polarized, attacked and censored.
Bad people are hailed as heroes, when they are in fact villains, why are they heroes, because rotten people are easily controllable by the establishment. The same malign people found in the media, and government can be found in the political class,
Phillip Schofield has no value to the elite now after his brother was jailed for 12 years for being a paedophile, and Schofield had an affair with a young boy. A media campaign is underway to make Schofield appear as a victim, the public isn’t buying that, some of the public see Phillip Schofield as a groomer and openly say it.
In a recent BBC interview with Andrew Tate, reporter Lucy Williamson was destroyed after she carried out an uncivil, unprofessional and counterproductive interview. How did Tate win, by using the only source of light which cannot be countered, the truth.
Tate speaks out, so Tate is to be silenced, use the link below to watch the full unedited raw interview and see how far the BBC has sunk as a professional organisation, it cannot be trusted, it has shown this multiple times now. We live in an age where alternative media has taken the mantle in part of being the real voice of the people and speakers of truth. This video is longer than normal because the way we as the public are continually being deceived and manipulated is a matter of grave concern for the future of our society. Truth is one of the cornerstones of any civilized society and we are losing it, how long to our society collapses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNdSgfgA1Kk&t=1119s
Ever since New Labour, nothing has been right. When socialists support the Conservatives because the Labour Party of Great Britain despises the poorest and the Scottish Nationalists despise the word "nationalist." There is a problem, you know it. We know it.
ReplyDelete1. I remember watching Kathy Newman v Jordan Petersen and Petersen won but it was a good contest. Lucy WillIiamson, on the other hand, was pulverized. It was just a terrible performance by the interviewer. She had no facts...not one.
ReplyDelete2. Andrew Neil is my current favourite. Not much of a contest there is there? Andrew Neil versus Philip Schofield. I remember Andrew Neil had a dalliance with an aging glamour girl about 30-years ago. I can't remember her name of the exact nature of the scandal.
3. The country which suffered least from Covid was Sweden and they went for the herd-immunity approach. That's what's working all over the world now and Covid vaccines are largely redundant now.
The proliferation of liars in politics might have been brought about by Blair, Campbell and the Iraq war. Dr David Kelly committed suicide because he claimed that both had sexed-up the WMD dossier and he faced such a barrage of criticism for it. It turns out, due to the recently published release of classified documents, that Kelly was right all along. No-one, apart from Kelly of course, paid any sort of a price for that and Campbell is treated as some all-knowing political guru nowadays. That was simple lies, that had the most awful consequences, and yet both continue to live off the fat of the land. No hint of an apology or anything like that.
ReplyDeleteSo, lies in politics have just become an accepted part of what the Labour Party does nowadays. It is accepted, because it works and they hardly ever get caught. Are the SNP following in the same footsteps? I think they are, but it will take them some time to catch-up with Labour.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your letter.
I understand that the primary function of the Institution is to regulate the conduct of its members with respect to the Ethical Code. It was on that understanding that I made a complaint about the conduct of one of your members in 2021. It was a complaint of professional misconduct.
During the period September 2014 - August 2016, there was a great deal of discussion and opinions being passed backwards and forwards about whether this building contained a latent defect, or not. I thought that it did, but no-one else agreed with me at the time.
The basis of my complaint to the Institution was that your member accepted a visual inspection report in 2016 instead of doing what he should have done, which was insist on an independent check by a geotechnical engineer be carried-out. Crucially, a latent defect will not be identified by a visual inspection report and I presume that the Institution accepts that?
So, if your member had complied with the law, this investigation would have been satisfactorily concluded 7-years ago and that, specifically, is what I have been saying to the Institution.
The Institution came back to me and said that their member was only required to ask for a visual inspection report, not an independent check by a geotechnical engineer. That decision came as a shock to me and it has caused an inevitable continuation of the stasis surrounding this case.
The purpose of my numerous Emails over the course of the past two years was to explain to you that I do not believe that decision was correct. That is not what EC7, or the Cole Inquiry (which the ICE participated in) recommended that you do and I have been asking the ICE to explain why it is the case that why they still recommend it?
I presume that between yourselves and the Institution you can come to a decision on this? It seems to have held-up the conclusion of this investigation, needlessly in my opinion, and it would be most helpful if the Institution took the lead on this and communicated your decision, not to me, but to the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council.
Finally, whistle-blowing case are supposed to be concluded in 1-8 weeks and this case has now extended, needlessly in my view, to almost 9-years. I wonder if the Institution has a proper understanding of the difficulties that brings with it? Perhaps you can ask them?
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteFurther to my Email to you earlier, I attach the following advice which was received from Bob Matheson of "Protect" on 30/11/22, which demonstrates the ongoing stasis caused by the Institution's adjudication a year earlier. As you can see, he doesn't agree with the Institution either.
The key point is that when the Institution adjudicate on a matter such as this, the public expectation is that they will have looked at it very, very carefully and they will have come to a decision which is supported by law and by professional engineering practice. If that has not been the case, then there will be an entirely negative public reaction to that.
As I alluded to earlier, I want to leave this investigation at the end of this week and so any follow-up guidance that the Institution has, and I presume that they will now want to clear this situation up once and for all, should be directed to Mr Allard at Aberdeen City Council and Ms Dunbar at the Scottish Government and not to myself.
George - The above is a case in point isn't it? This chap has been asked by the Institution of Civil Engineers to intimidate me in some way. No doubt the Institution are paying him well do do that. Would it not be more sensible for them just to do their job? I've had to do it for them, the American Society of Civil Engineers have had to do it for them. Can they not just do it themselves?
ReplyDeleteDear All,
ReplyDelete2 things:
Earlier I received a letter from the Institution of Civil Engineers' (ICE) lawyer. The ICE adjudicated on this case approximately 2-years ago and their judgement was that visual inspection reports were acceptable and that judgement has led to the stasis that continues to affect us all.
I replied to the lawyer by asking him to consult with his client again and confirm if visual inspection reports are an acceptable means of detecting latent defects. If he responds in the negative, that means that Aberdeen City Council's evidence will be rendered as inadmissible and, if that is the case, and I expect that it will be the case, then what do you all do then?
There were extensive checks carried-out by Aberdeen City Council in March 2018 and it involved input from consulting engineers Buro Happold, Arup, WSP, Cundall and foundation specialist Van-Elle. At that time, the Council employed and took guidance from their own geotechnical expert, Dr Mark Stewart. This was in response to "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion (14) by expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers which had been submitted a few months earlier in November 2017. These consulting engineers submitted proper design reviews, with recommendations, to the Council.
It therefore seems likely that all of the information required to solve this case has been with the Council for more than 5-years. Instead of dancing on the head of a pin, as the ICE are currently doing, would it not be more prudent to locate this information and for all of you to interrogate it properly? It is held by Charlie Penman of Aberdeen City Council and Angeline Robertson of Hub.
I am satisfied that any progress that I try and make with the Institution of Civil Engineers will not yield results; it should, but it won't. We are fortunate that the American Society of Civil Engineers believe in an open, communicative approach to solving these problems.
I have asked Mr O'Hara to ensure that I am released from this investigation on Friday. I spoke to a member of his team last week and I am satisfied that she is working on my behalf. That is all that I am interested in at the moment and the safety of Brimmond School is for all the rest of you to determine from here.
Dear Brendan,
Can you ask Kirsty to update me when she has time please?
When Cathy Newman interviewed Jordan Petersen, she knew that he was a sharp, quite witted guy and that pinning him down would be difficult. She therefore did her homework on the subject and went into the interview prepared. She kept smiling throughout the interview I think so that Petersen wouldn't be too tough on her. She was beaten and there is no doubt about that, but she wasn't disgraced and she could look at that interview again and it won't embarrass her or anything like that. I though that Lucy Williamson just sat and scowled at Tate, she was unprepared and her questions were bad, meaning that Tate just set about humiliating her. I don't think he is a blameless character here for a moment, but you can forgive him because he did to her what she wanted to do to him. He is not an easy guy to interview is he.
ReplyDeleteNothing at-all happened today but we have all the pressure we need now and so it is only a matter of waiting it out. We have been in this situation before, you may recall and, for whatever reason, it has stalled.
ReplyDeleteTo mitigate against that happening this again, I have excluded Jackie Baillie from all correspondence. Hence, it is my MP, the Brimmond constituency MSP and the co-leader of Aberdeen City Council and all of them are SNP.
Once it's over, I expect the SNP might blame the Labour Party, but we'll see. Just get it over with first.
I notice the postponed DRS scheme is likely to cost us all £300-£400million in claims. Should Lorne Slater not be bagged for that? I can remember when the actual cost of the Holyrood building reached £300-£400million, there were calls to bag just about everyone that was involved up to and including the Secretary of State for Scotland. Remember that? We got a building for our £300-£400million back then. We've got nothing this time, have we?
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting on confirmation of a meeting, George.
ReplyDeleteWe are at the end though. The purpose in these investigations is to get to the one person onto whom all blame can be attributed.
That appears to be Mr Spence at Aberdeen City Council: "It doesn't matter what you think or the others think, the decision rests with me and I don't agree with you".
So, if he is wrong, and I think at this stage it has been established that he is clearly wrong, then public anger will be directed towards him and that's the way it works.
We are only talking about money here and he is fortunate that is all we are talking about.
Dear Brendan and Anas,
ReplyDeleteI went to see Universal Credit today in Helensburgh and, as you can imagine, I am annoyed about that. That's the first time I have had to do that in my life.
As I see it, we are finished now. Gordon Spence, who is an employee of Aberdeen City Council, can be held responsible for the safety of the school as per his Email to me below, of 15/12/21 and that's the way the law works. Mr Spence is not qualified to dismiss my concerns, let alone the concerns of 40No world experts.
As I have explained, I have found a possible job and it is the job that I explained to you a number of days ago. Finding any kind of job with this hanging over your head is virtually impossible and, for this one to progress, I need to be vindicated and released from this investigation.
I cannot understand what is holding us up at this stage. Obviously, I will need an answer very, very quickly now. Can you let me know please?
Incidentally, I explained this predicament to Universal Credit and they understood it straight away. Their question to me?: "Why was this not investigated at the time". So, that's a question Anas Sarwar should perhaps be asking his team at Aberdeen City Council and Holyrood?
I took a look at Wings over Scotland there. He's convinced the next Holyrood administration will be a Labour/SNP coalition. The only matter still up for some kind of debate is who the FM will be - Yousaf or Sarwar. As always with Stuart Campbell, he presents a cogent argument that's hard to argue with. God help us if that happens.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I've posted this up before, I don't think I have, but undernoted is the Email that catches Mr Spence in the net and makes him responsible for Brimmond School. Maybe he's in the net alone or maybe with someone else, that's the only question now. He's not even an engineer and so he really has no authority to make decisions like this and to dismiss me, the experts from the ASCE and his own experts. But Councils in Scotland always tended to work like this didn't they.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with this Email is that he has been given all the expert opinion from myself and even from his own experts and he has unilaterally decided to reject it all. He gives the allusion that it is me alone that is complaining, but it is every engineer that is complaining and so Mr Spence, at this stage, is in exactly the same position that Jack Gillum was in. No-one will help him, why should they, and he's on his own.
The old excuse that is trotted-out by Jenny Laing and Jackie Baillie that they are not engineers and so they know nothing, will not work for Mr Spence and it might not even work for them because they will have been expected to ask an engineer.
Who is the engineer that they would have been expected to ask?: Scotland's Head of Building Standards, Stephen Garvin. Did they ask Mr Garvin? Yes they did. In fact, I met Mr Garvin in 2019 and spent 3-hours explaining this case to him and so he knows all about it. In fact, he understands the engineering of this particular case better than anyone else who is involved. At the end of the meeting, he said that he understood the problem and would consult with Mr Spence and would report back to me with an outcome, but he never did that.
So, is it Mr Spence or Mr Garvin? Or both? That's really the only question remaining, isn't it? Emails like the undernoted are pretty much a slam-dunk.
Dear Mr Dick,
There is insufficient evidence that the building is unsafe requiring statutory action under Section 29 of the Building (Scot) Act 2003. I understand you may disagree with this opinion, but the decision sits with the Building Standards service.
I stand by my comments and explanation of the statutory process below and can confirm I have requested further information from the building owner. This will be reviewed in due course.
Regards,
Gordon
Gordon Spence MRICS | Building Standards Manager
Aberdeen City Council | Building Standards | Strategic Place Planning| Place
Marischal College | Business Hub 4 | Broad St| Aberdeen | AB10 1AB
I see that Glasgow Soup Kitchen has been forced to fund-raise to buy 3 new vans to work inside Glasgow's ULEZ. They were granted an exemption a few hours before the ULEZ was brought into force; presumably the council were told: "grant us an exemption or people will go hungry tonight and we will go to the press", and so they granted an exemption but it is just for 3-months. It strikes me that our political leaders are further away from the public mood than ever before. Would crap like this have happened 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago?
ReplyDeleteGeorge - We'll see what happens in the next few days. I've explained the problem to them, given them a solution, got it all peer-reviewed by experts, told them who to blame and so it's finished.
ReplyDeleteGetting a new job when you have the reputation of being a whistle-blower is impossible, as you can imagine. I think I might have found one and I have sent enough data to Brendan O'Hara to let him know that it is genuine.
No job has actually been offered yet and it conceivably might never be offered but, for now, it looks encouraging. This matter needs to be cleared-up to an outcome first though and I have asked Brendan to do that. One thing the past years have taught me is that Jackie Baillie and all the rest of them will do nothing and so I'm all for giving Brendan the opportunity.
Politically, he can work it to the SNP's advantage and I have no problem with that. As long as he gets me finished with an outcome that suits me and gets you and Protect paid for your work, then I will agree to that. That would be a fair outcome that no-one could argue with.
George - As explained above, I require a full vindication to be delivered to my possible future employer by the Scottish Government within the next three days.
ReplyDeleteHis contact details are already with Brendon O'Hara. The chap is outside the country just now but he is easily contactable and will be returning to Scotland on Tuesday.
The vindication should say something like: "Mr Dick brought the issue of an as-built design mistake which was made on a school under construction to our attention in 2014 and asked for us to check it for him. He ascertained that the design was wrong, but many disagreed with him and said it was correct. Unfortunately, those with responsibility for checking Mr Dick's allegations did not take them seriously enough at the time and allowed construction to continue unchecked. It now transpires that Mr Dick was correct and all at Scottish Building Standards are profoundly grateful to him for the patience that he has shown over the years in proving that his allegations were correct and the determination shown by him in repeatedly bringing this to our attention. We understand that Mr Dick is looking for another job now and Scottish Building Standards, on behalf of the Scottish Government will assist him in any way we possibly can to do that. This has been the result of a misunderstanding between the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council and we accept that Mr Dick has suffered because of it. All at the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council extend our appreciation to him for acting so professionally over the years and preventing what could well have resulted in a sudden and unexpected structural failure from occurring at the school. He is a very competent professional and let us know if there is anything we can do to assist Mr Dick's return to employment."
That's the content that is required. It is for the Scottish Government to decide who issues the letter, but I would suggest Stephen Garvin? I don't need to be copied-in and the letter can go from Stephen Garvin to Brendan O'Hara and from Brendan O'Hara to the employer.
Furthermore, I have been asking for a closing meeting for months now. That can either be with Harper MacLeod or Beltrami and, whoever it is with, when I walk out the door after the meeting it should be with an agreed settlement which is all-encompassing and includes payment to all that have been involved in supporting me thus far. That meeting should also take place within the next three days.
Dear Mr Allard and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteThe following are minutes of a meeting between myself and Stephen Garvin and Scott Johnston of the Scottish Government on 23/5/19. This was produced on 24/5/19 and it was sent to Mr Garvin for his action but he never responded and so I now present it to you for your action.
These minutes were written so that they can be followed and understood by any lay-person. It was a 3-hour meeting with over 50No minuted items, but the information is complete and this only requires to be answered, point for point, by Mr Garvin.
I highlighted the items that I considered were crucial at the time, but he should, at the stage we are at now, be expected to answer all of the items below.
If he cannot do that, then it emerges as a possibility that this building has been "recklessly certified" over the years by Aberdeen City Council and that would be a grave situation. It is certainly plausible that is what has happened here.
In previous years I have been sending information like this to Jackie Baillie MSP and she would send it to Jenny Laing who would ignore the questions asked. I presume that we are beyond that now and that you are both taking this very seriously?
Dear Mr O'Hara,
I wrote to you yesterday requesting urgent action on two items that will bring my involvement in this case to a close and I assume that both are now underway?
Meeting 2, 23rd May 2019, Denholm House Livingstone, 12.00 - 3.00pm
ReplyDeleteAttendees: Stephen Dick, Stephen Garvin, Scott Johnston
1) Before the meeting started, SD presented an example of a similar and recent case which took place overseas.
2) Like Scotland, this country had experienced a construction failure. This failure resulted in the deaths of many people and so a Governmental Inquiry took place, similar to our Cole Inquiry.
3) That enquiry recommended that an expert technical team are appointed immediately any risk is identified in any building or structure which affects public safety.
4) That technical team are to be assisted by all government employees. A timeline was included in the presentation which showed that assistance is usually provided within 24-hours of it being requested.
5) SD made the point that, in Scotland, the government is not reacting in the same way.
6) That government were implementing all of the recommendations of their government inquiry. SD asked if the SG we were currently implementing any of the Cole Inquiry recommendations?
7) 'Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion' - This was sent to the Scottish Government in October 2017. SD asked if it had been accepted by them – specifically, were the identities and experience of the respondents accepted and had their comments and recommendations been investigated. SG said that this was HUB’s responsibility and they would have to answer for that. SD requested HUB’s response.
8) The explanation of Eurocode 7 by Bond And Schuppener was examined. SD stated that GEO limit state failure had taken place before the school was officially opened. SD stated his understanding that this required immediate investigation by a specialist engineer. SG disputed that this was a legal requirement in Scotland.
9) Photo 76 was examined and SD stated that this was an example of a confined artesian layer. This photo was taken in spring-time and so in winter-time this situation will deteriorate further.
10) The report states that these artesian layers are in the north and north-west of the site. It is the north-west of the site which is currently affected by subsidence.
11) Respondents to ‘Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion’ came from all over the world. Many stated that upwelling water was the problem and had to be controlled; many stated that subsidence/settlement was obvious.
12) The two respondents from Europe were 10 and 31 Greg Hayes, and 28 Stefan Le Roy. Both refer to Design Standards; Greg Hayes refers specifically to Eurocode 7.
13) We appear to have over 40No expert engineers from all over the world saying that the site needs proper drainage and that subsidence is occurring and no-one is currently disputing that. On that basis, why are we accepting HUB/Aberdeen City Council’s refusal to communicate and to do anything?
14) No information was provided by SG. SD provided 2No photographs which appeared to show obvious subsidence.
15) SG said that subsidence was a rare failure to occur nowadays. SD agreed, but reiterated that subsidence caused by underground scour was the cause of the problem and it was only going to get worse. This was stated in meeting 1 and was rejected by Bill Dodds. We now have evidence to show it is likely to be correct.
16) A photo from ‘Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments’ appeared to show large puddles containing a proportion of clay or silt. That is a sign that soil is being washed away from the subsurface layers. This inevitably causes subsidence and many cubic meters of soil can be washed away very quickly by this process.
17) The effect that this has had on the stability of the soils on site was discussed at length. SD said that this has cut-off the artesian layers and caused the water table to rise and for the effects of ‘piping’ and ‘boiling’ to take place. Both can be extremely damaging during periods of intense rainfall.
18) There is, of course, a risk that installing proper drainage at this late stage will actually cause some degree of settlement. But SD stated that some cracking may occur to a building which was compliant. If drainage is not installed now, cracking will still occur but it will be to a building which is non-compliant and that is an entirely different matter.
ReplyDelete19) Repairing cracks in a compliant building is done by the contractor. Repairing cracks in a non-compliant building is completely different from a compliance standpoint.
20) A method of installing proper drainage was suggested in ‘Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion’ and that suggestion was generally supported by the respondents.
21) The design checks by Fairhurst, BuroHappold, WSP and Cundall were not provided. SD expressed doubt that they actually existed.
22) SD stated that the visual report by Ramsay and Chalmers was next to useless. All it proves is that Peter Fraser of Ramsay and Chalmers walked around the site and didn't notice the subsidence. It doesn’t prove that there is no subsidence.
23) The limitations of these visual reports were explained by Professor Cole and SD expressed surprise that they were still being used. In the past, they were used by Edinburgh Schools PFI consortium to say that faulty schools were safe and that was made abundantly clear in the Cole Enquiry Report. Why is another City Council still using these visual reports; is this not a question the SG should be asking? The Cole Enquiry report was carried to advise the SG after-all.
24) SD suggested that Professor Cole would recommend the HUB consortium concentrate their efforts for now on ‘Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion’.
25) Both SG and SJ stated that the responsibility lay with Aberdeen City Council for the safety of the school.
26) SD stated that photo 70 showing soil collapse was sent to the HUB consortium, including Aberdeen City Council, before the school was even started. Instead of investigating it, they appear to have ignored it and now soil collapse is continuing and threatens the safety of the building. Is this the actions of a client body which puts the safety of the public first?
27) ACC/HUB appear to be doing nothing and waiting for the next stage, which is cracking of the building. SD asked if they were allowed to do this?
28) SD stated that the Ramsay and Chalmers report was commissioned by HUB and not by Aberdeen City Council. Based upon that, the school has been deemed safe for the past 3-years. Given the views expressed by experts in ‘Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion’, surely this needs to be urgently reviewed? Either that or make your own design checks available, but we cannot do nothing.
29) investigate themselves. Does the letter from HUB page 56 and the letter from ACC page 57-58 suggest that either organization has any interest in doing so? Should the SG be accepting this?
30) HUB led the consortium which built the school. If the building contains a latent defect, then are HUB responsible for that? They knew all about the alleged fault and allowed work to continue without a proper investigation.
31) Neither Aberdeen City Council, nor HUB respond regarding this school. Jackie Baillie’s letter of 2nd August 2018 was partially responded to by Jenny Laing on 25th January 2019. Where else in the world would this be acceptable?
32) SD asked that, by publishing the Ramsay and Chalmers visual report, have the HUB consortium removed responsibility for this fault from the contractor and placed it with public bodies instead, be that Aberdeen City Council or HUB? If it were not for ‘Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments’ ALL risk would already be with public bodies.
33) Aberdeen City Council have an established Building Control Department containing specialist engineers who can assist. Why are we dealing with the councillors of Aberdeen City Council instead of these engineers?
34) SD stated that as far as he was concerned, Ogilvie were a normal contractor no better or worse than anyone else.
35) We appear to be asking HUB and ACC to contractor with no evidence to suggest they were any different to the others. The process needs to be managed by a strong client body and the problem at Brimmond lies with the HUB consortium.
ReplyDelete36) SD explained that there were two design options for the school. A piled foundation, or shallow pad foundations. Shallow pad foundations were cheaper but the site had to be permanently drained first (page 86-88). The shallow pad foundation option was followed and page 71 shows the permanent drainage. The problem has arisen because a deep excavation has been installed which has cut through all of the confined artesian layers and has caused winter-time flooding of the site. The drainage is simply unable to cope with the volume of water which is now inundating the site. SG noted this, understood it, and said he would take this up urgently with ACC.
37) SD explained that when he was on site, the service provided by BuroHappold was completely normal. They witnessed the ongoing work and never expressed any concerns and SD didn’t believe that, at that point, there were any concerns.
38) SD referred to the advice of many ASCE members who suggested increasing the engineering design input on these projects. The HUB consortium, on the other hand, have allowed it to be reduced.
39) SD asked why we in Scotland we are asking councillors, politicians, civil servants and lawyers to sort this out, as it is not working? He suggested we look to the recent Morandi Bridge collapse in Genoa. That was said by politicians to be ‘safe for another 50 Years’; one year later it collapsed resulting in the deaths of many people. After the collapse, the politicians refused to be interviewed on camera; instead the camera crews travelled to Genoa and spoke to the Professor of Engineering at Genoa University. He said: ‘I knew that was going to happen and I told them many times about it. The bridge contains an inherent design fault and it was only a matter of time’. Are we not getting ourselves into the same situation here?
40) SD/SG discussed the timescale for a subsidence failure; was it short term or long term as both have been suggested by him in the past? It is impossible to say, but most would agree that it is weather dependent and most likely to happen during wet winter-time weather.
41) The traditional way to proceed is for the politicians, councilors and civil servants to seek the best advice they can from the technical team and to accept that, if the technical team have concerns, they are real concerns based upon experience. Politicians, councilors and civil servants then ensure their recommendations are implemented. We appear to be far away from that scenario here.
42) The area of subsidence has a SBC of 0kN/m2.SD stated that this was discussed at length during the last meeting on 17th August 2016 with Bill Dodds. It was stated that the Fairhurst report was the stage 1 report which contained design recommendations.
43) The successful contractor doesn’t have to comply with these recommendations, but it would be unusual for him not to do so.
44) BuroHappold carried-out a stage 2 report. The purpose of this report is to carry-out any further testing missed from the stage 1 report. It does not contain any design recommendations and that is not its purpose.
45) Bill Dodds stated that the required SBC of the soil was 150kN/m2. According to Fairhurst, this was the maximum that could be achieved and that required a relatively dry soil. Excess ground water will therefore eventually lead to softening and failure.
46) SD stated that it was probably the design FoS that was preventing failure at the moment, but that this was a situation which would not last winter after winter.
ReplyDelete47) Fairhurst stated that the SBC could drop as low as 0-75kN/m2 and this is what has been happening
48) SD asked if the sentence: ‘Aberdeen City Council and Ogilvie Construction have indicated that the ground levels are as constructed rather than due to subsidence’ is factually correct as we have examined photographs which indicate that it is not correct. The opinions of ASCE members too would indicate that it is not correct.
49) SD asked if the paragraph: ‘You have also contended that a large excavation…had the potential to reduce the bearing capacity of the ground. BuroHappold has confirmed with us that it was aware of this but as it was not under the footprint of the building, was satisfied with the integrity of the original design’ is factually correct as the members of the ASCE advise the opposite is true?
50) Since this letter was issued, the SG have refused to engage in any further discussion regarding the safety of this school. SD asked SJ to confirm whether these specific statements are correct as this letter has effectively stopped all further discussion.
51) SD stated that it was the SG who were responsible for the content of their letters and the conduct of their employees and asked the SG to answer this.
52) SD said that the contents of this agenda were very similar to the agenda followed at meeting 1, on 17th August 2016. Nothing has changed. SD has gathered more information since then, but LESS information has been offered by the SG.
I believe that a respected academic is involved now, George. He knows how to communicate and will cut through all of this crap and give us his expert opinion, instantly. I expect him to agree with everything that I have said and that puts an awful lot of people on the wrong side of this argument. Only myself, a blogger and Protect are on the right side of the argument. That's bad enough I suppose but those on the right have not been paid and those on the wrong have all been paid! Something wrong there, surely?
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I have asked Brendan O'Hara to allow me to remove myself from this and to do it now; today. I have found my own job, or it is a possible job as nothing has actually been offered yet, but I will need an official all-clear, in the form of a letter, from the Scottish Government first. Also, I want to be paid all of my losses since 2014. I have asked Brendan O'Hara to organize both for me. I will keep you informed of that of course.
So, the nine wilderness years for me have been 2014-2016: the Jenny Laing Years and 2017-2023: the Jackie Baillie Years. Putrid and disgraceful, isn't it.
Dear Brendan and Kirsty,
ReplyDeleteI met and was speaking to Mr _______ half an hour ago. He's leaving again on Friday and so can contact be made with him tomorrow?
I am stating the obvious here, but none of those who are guilty of making this error, or for covering it up, have lost their jobs. I am not complaining about that but I have stated on several occasions that I want, and need, to return to work now.
If there is any other strategy for getting me back to work then I am all ears, but if there's not and if this is the only plan that will work, then can you follow it up urgently?
The only other item is the closing meeting. Can that be organized for this week too, please?
Dear Mr Allard and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI will send you the package of information which was reviewed at the 23/5/19 meeting with Stephen Garvin and Scott Johnson on a following series of Emails which will be entitled: "Information 1", "Information 2" and "Information 3".
You will realize that a great deal of information was reviewed and I left the meeting expecting that action would be taken but, as I explained yesterday, that never happened and so it was a missed opportunity to recognize that there is a real problem here.
You have my permission to pass this information over to whoever is advising you.
I will send the 3No Emails on to you now.
Dear Mr Allard and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI sent the information a short time ago and it appears to have gone through to Mr Allard, but not to Ms Dunbar.
Can I ask that you both communicate and that Mr Allard re-sends the information to Ms Dunbar, as it is crucial that you both have access to it?
Dear Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteYour summary is very thorough and the effort put into understanding the engineering and putting this together on my behalf, in such a short space of time, is appreciated. It is a great relief to finally be in a position where I can see that those in positions of authority are communicating and are demonstrating honesty and accountability and so thank-you for that.
There are only two points that I would add to your summary and they are as follows:
1. The Design Standard we are speaking about is EC7 and Design Standards are law. EC7 states that when the land starts to sink and to flood, a "hydraulic failure" is taking place and at that point, a specialist geotechnical engineer should carry-out checks and propose a solution. You are not permitted to wait until the building starts to subside, or to settle excessively, and that is what Aberdeen City Council have been doing. It is an incredibly dangerous thing to allow to happen and that is why I am bringing it to everyone's attention. Incidentally, it was a hydraulic failure that caused the sudden collapse of the Surfside apartment building in Miami approximately 2-years ago and it was identified by the same expert members of the ASCE that provided guidance to us on Brimmond School in 2017. That is a sobering thought, isn't it.
2. Aberdeen City Council employed their own geotechnical expert and he took part in the March 2018 review of the as-built design alongside Buro Happold, Arup, Cundall, WSP and Van-Elle. His name is Dr Mark Stewart and I understand that he is now a lecturer at Aberdeen University. If Mr Allard wants a clear and objective explanation of the problem at Brimmond School and whether I have been exaggerating it and whether or not it can be fixed, then I suspect that Dr Stewart will be able to provide that better than anyone else.
I have copied-in Sybille Raphael from Protect as her organization have been a great support to me over the years and I include Brendan O'Hara as I have asked him to assist finalizing this to an outcome for me to allow me to return to work. That, as you can imagine, cannot come quickly enough now. This has been an unacceptable ordeal for any member of the public to be put through and you do all seem to appreciate that.
Dear Mr O'Hara,
Please can you keep me up to date with developments regarding my return to work and my settlement meeting? Both should be finalized this week?
Dear Kirsty,
ReplyDeleteWhen we last spoke, you were going to write a letter to the Deputy First Minister and the Co-Leader of Aberdeen City Council and I suggested writing the letter for you and I sent the following suggested letter to you on 2nd June:
"I am writing on behalf of my constituent..........
I don't know whether you sent the letter or not, but it sounds as if you may not have send it? Time has moved-on anyway.
The highlighted paragraph pertains to me and that is all that I am really interested in now as Ms Dunbar and Mr Allard clearly understand the rest of the points made and they are in control of that situation now.
It has been explained to me that my return to work and my settlement meeting can only be organized by a parliamentarian. Jackie Baillie has had more than 7-years to do that and she shows no sign of being interested in doing it. No lawyer can solve this as I am now time-barred.
I accept what you say about you not having a locus, but what I explained the last time we spoke is that the MSP with the locus, Jackie Baillie, has recused herself from any further involvement, thus I have no locus. What is a member of the public supposed to do in this situation? Can one of you explain that to me?
I have done the difficult part which is finding a possible job and that, under the circumstances that I have been left in, is a remarkable achievement. What I have been explaining to you is that I require to be vindicated by the Scottish Government in order that I may be offered that job. That requires a letter to be written, not to me or to you, but to the prospective employer explaining my role over the past 9-years and explaining that I have been completely vindicated by the Scottish Government. That is the only letter that I require and it should be delivered to him tomorrow as he leaves again on Friday. Who writes the letter? I have suggested Stephen Garvin, but I will leave that to all of you to decide.
The settlement meeting should be arranged to ensure that I am properly compensated by those responsible for creating the situation that I have been trapped in for the past 9-years. That again, can only be resolved by parliamentarians; either Brendan O'Hara or Jackie Baillie and so can you collaborate and communicate, as Jackie Dunbar and Christian Allard did so effectively earlier today and let me know what solution you propose?
This is of the utmost importance to me and I do not want to be further delayed, even for one more day, by anyone who is not doing as they should be doing. Failing to communicate in the situation we are in now is unforgivable and so please just do as I ask, take this seriously and don't keep blaming me all of the time for this mess; just sort it out between yourselves.
Let me know tomorrow what you propose to do, please? You already have the prospective employer's Email address?
Dear Kirsty,
ReplyDeleteLet me make two points very clear to you: No job has actually been offered yet and it may conceivably not be offered and so the letter should not be presumptuous in any way. It should assure the employer that I am an honest professional that has been involved in a long-running dispute over an engineering design and that I have been proven correct and that my return to employment is being supported by the Scottish Government.
Secondly, although the Contractor behaved very badly at the time, he is not obligated to check anything that I say is correct. However, when I presented myself as a whistle-blower to Harper Macleod, Hub, Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government, all of these parties are obligated, under the CDM Regulations, to check if I am right, wrong or if I have been exaggerating and that is the way the industry works.
Hence, and it is for parliamentarians to decide this in the end, but in my view it is some combination of Harper MacLeod, Hub, Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government that are responsible for paying my losses. You may see it as Harper MacLeod's sole responsibility and, if that were to be the case, that would agree with my point of view.
The impression that I got earlier today from reading Ms Dunbar's synopsis of the case is that she is in command of the safety aspects of the school. I added very little to what she presented to me and so I think that we can all leave that to be taken forwards from here by Ms Dunbar and Mr Allard and his team at the Council. As I alluded to earlier, I was surprised and very pleased to see such a clear presentation of the case being put-forward so quickly and so we can be assured that it is now being taken seriously, at last, by the right authoritative parties.
Therefore, I am asking for a letter to be sent tomorrow and a meeting, presumably at Harper MacLeod's office, on Friday. That should be a closing meeting where an outcome is presented to me that I am able to accept. Please send me confirmation tomorrow of what has been arranged.
George - It sounds as though we are nearly at the end. I don't know who Jackie Dunbar is, other than she is the MSP for Aberdeen Donside, but she does her job very well. I don't know Mr Allard either, but he's the same. So, all of a sudden, I've got some help and that makes all the difference.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteYou may want to pass-on the undernoted 4No Emails to Mr Allard at Aberdeen City Council. When I last contacted you, I suggested that responsibility be attributed to Harper MacLeod and this information explains why I said that. What has to be understood is that when we are talking about live construction, and about foundations in particular, it is crucial that proper investigations are carried-out immediately, before the foundations are started, otherwise it is too late and that is what has happened here. The expected costs of rectifying this now, if it can be rectified, will be substantial and if Harper MacLeod had acted quickly, as I asked them to do, then the Contractor's insurance would most likely have paid for everything:
Email 1, 13/9/14: Construction had only started. This is when I first report that the design had been changed, that I am a whistle-blower and that the design change should be checked, quickly, by geotechnical experts as I was certain that it wouldn't work. At this point, work on the foundations hadn't yet started.
Email 2, 18/5/15: I was unhappy that Harper MacLeod weren't taking me seriously and weren't passing my concerns regarding the safety of the design change on to all of the other parties that were involved in the project and so I did it myself. By that time of course, it was far too late.
Email 3, 22/11/15: The school was now complete and this was my first report to Bruce Caldow that the land was sinking and flooding and I was asking him to alert all of the other parties that were involved. This, as the photograph shows, was the first sign that "hydraulic failure" was taking place and alarm bells should have been ringing at that point. Incidentally, it was exactly the same type of hydraulic failure that preceded the Surfside apartment block collapse in 2021.
Email 4, 16/6/16: Bruce Caldow explaining to me why he had done nothing.
What these Emails demonstrate to me is that this company, Harper MacLeod, are not competent to be involved in construction projects. They are no doubt competent to protect the public interest in many other matters, but not construction projects and I'll leave it to Mr Allard and his team to take a view on this.
I didn't hear anything from Brendan O'Hara yesterday and that was disappointing. The position that I have been left in since 2014 is that I am unable to return to private sector engineering and I have never been offered a job in the public sector. I have nevertheless found a possible job but in order for it to be realized, I require a confirmation from the Scottish Government that my involvement in Brimmond School is over and that I have been found to have been correct and my reputation will only be restored, as far as it can be restored, after that has been done. I require that and a closing meeting with Harper MacLeod where I will be offered an acceptable settlement.
I am satisfied that Mr O'Hara and his team are working on this at the moment and so I will continue to wait.
Dear Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteCan I add a 5th Email to those I sent earlier and perhaps you can also forward this to Mr Allard? I presume that he and his team are working on this just now and they will appreciate this information. It is from Harper MacLeod's Professor Robert Rennie and if you compare his contribution with that of the ASCE experts, which was distributed to all, including to Professor Rennie, two years earlier in November 2017, then you will begin to understand my view that there is a real problem with this company.
Incidentally, and I have mentioned this many times in the past, it is unusual that lawyers have the final word on engineering matters and, in my experience, it doesn't happen elsewhere in the world. In other countries, the opinion of expert engineers are the only opinions that have any weight and Bruce Caldow and Professor Rennie's involvement in this investigation, from start to finish, demonstrates why that is the case. They are simply not competent to deal with the complexity of engineering design, they do not understand it, they refuse to communicate and they discourage others from communicating and their strategy has been to just ignore this and it will go-away and that is how you set the seeds for future disasters.
You appear, from what you sent on Wednesday, to be focussing principally on the advice and guidance provided by the ASCE experts and I agree with that strategy.
1. To: Bruce Caldow, Harper Macleod, 13/914
ReplyDelete"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.
From my personal point of view, I wanted to resolve this as an employee of Ogilvie and I wanted to finish the project and ensure that it was successful. 'Whistleblowing' is not therefore something that I chose to do, but something that I have been forced into doing. How else can I deal with an employer like Ogilvie? Surely employees should be able to raise concerns about engineering (especially on government funded projects) without fear of being of being terminated on the fabricated grounds of 'poor communication skills'.
3. To: Bruce Caldow, Harper MacLeod, 22/11/15
ReplyDelete"Bruce,
I was in Aberdeen last week and took this photograph of the Brimmond playground on Thursday 19th November. I believe that the source of this water, and the reason that it is that is apparently trapped in this location, should be investigated.
You will recall that I believe that there is a problem with the design of this school. Specifically, that the design will allow water inundation, soil collapse and subsidence to occur. I may of course be wrong, but my assertion is supported by the BSI Design Standards and the Soil Investigation Report.
I am sending this Email to you so that you can kindly pass it on to the appropriate recipients.
4. From: Bruce Caldow, Harper MacLeod, 16/6/16
ReplyDelete"Dear Stephen,
In relation to your email to me of 4th June regarding your earlier email of 22nd November 2015. I received the email of 22nd November 2015 from you when I was out of the office, on leave. I did not take any action on receipt of the email for a number of reasons, including that I was of the view that I was not instructed by you at that time, my file having been closed on your employment tribunal dispute ending with Ogilvie. You asked me to send your email on to un-named recipients. I did not send it on to any person as I was not engaged, whether at all, or on the basis that I should decide who to send it to. These thoughts were my initial thoughts on receiving the email and in having a number of pressing client matters to deal with I did nothing with your email. I thereafter didn’t hear from you and didn’t do anything with the email. I apologise for not acknowledging your email or for explaining my position to you at the time.
Professor Rennie now has your file and will be corresponding with you in due course regarding the point re. “conflict” that you raised.
5. From Professor Robert Rennie, Harper MacLeod, 23/12/19
ReplyDelete"I am not responding to anymore of your emails. Do not send any more. I dealt with your groundless complaint years ago."
George - I was told some time ago that this will only end when they can identify someone to blame. Many share responsibility of course but someone has to be blamed. The evidence that is presented above shows that they can elect either George Spence of Aberdeen City Council, Stephen Garvin of the Scottish Government, or Harper MacLeod. It could of course be some combination of all three, but I don't expect that somehow. Isn't it a very sad sequence of events that have unfolded here?
ReplyDeleteWell, it is like musical chairs, someone is going to lose out.
DeleteIt's been a constantly moving target over the years and I'll grant you that, but Harper MacLeod have always been at the forefront. Professor Rennie is sadly dead now and so that leaves Bruce Caldow. It is now being investigated at the highest levels within Buro Happold because it has been found that I have been right all-along and the rest of them have been lying to us.
DeleteDear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteApproximately 3-weeks ago, on 26th May 2023, my MSP, Jackie Baillie, recused herself from any further participation in the investigation into the safety of Brimmond School in Aberdeen. Prior to that she had been working on the case since 25th May 2016 and so she had been making very slow progress it has to be said.
The reason she recused herself was that she told me that she couldn't do any work on the case at that time because she was overseas. I stated, in a perfectly measured way, that she was actually in Rutherglen campaigning for the Labour Party at the time and that she ought not to take her constituents for fools. She reacted angrily to that and advised me to consult with another MSP. I did that and now the Constituency MSP for Aberdeen Donside, Jackie Dunbar, has taken the case forward with Aberdeen City Council.
From the evidence that I have seen, Ms Dunbar is carrying-out a thorough investigation and I feel comfortable that, at last, the matter is being taken seriously by those in authority and I have no doubt that Ms Dunbar is committed to solving it, once and for all, on behalf of her constituents. Mr Allard, and his team at Aberdeen City Council, appear aligned with Ms Dunbar and he too is committed to solving this case in a way that Jenny Laing never was and so a complete step-change in honesty and accountability is underway just now.
That leaves my situation to be resolved. Both Brendan O'Hara and Jackie Dunbar can do very little to assist me as that is the sole responsibility of my constituency MSP. I personally take a very dim view of Jackie Baillie's response to this and I suspect that would be the consensus public view. Her job is to work for her constituents and she, for whatever reason, has failed to do that and that is not acceptable, is it.
Can I suggest that you personally take-over from Jackie Baillie? That will involve communicating with myself and with the others noted above. All that I require to conclude my involvement in this case is a meeting with Harper MacLeod to agree a final settlement and a letter to a "possible" future employer, that I have identified to Mr O'Hara, explaining the circumstances that I have endured over the past nine-years and stating that I have been vindicated. The letter should be written by, I suggest, Stephen Garvin, Scotland's Head of Building Standards, and it should be written on behalf of the Scottish Government.
When I write to anyone within your organization they generally fail to respond or, if they do respond, it is never with a satisfactory response that is designed to answer the question that has been asked. Can you therefore look at this and personally answer the question set-out for you, in bold italic text, in the preceding paragraph? Copy everyone in please so that we all know where you stand.
Finally, I understand that this is something like the third longest running case in the history of "Protect" and they have been in existence since Piper Alpha. There is nothing wrong with the strength of the information you have been given over the years, in fact it is extraordinarily strong and Jackie Dunbar is proving that just now. It seems more and more likely to me that it is the organization that you lead that has been the problem and I want to make you aware of that.
The subject of Brimmond School is, potentially, a very grave matter of great public interest and so I am sure that I speak for all of us in saying that we look forward to receiving your response.
I doubt Sarwar will take much interest, I would be surprised if he addressed any of it, he thinks his star is on the rise, if Baillie had been from the left wing of the party he might have acted to get rid of her for a progress/Fabian character, but as she is a paid up member of the right wing and honoured in the recent lists, expect nothing.
DeleteI don't want to give him the opportunity to say: "Not me - I don't know anything about this". It has been a Labour Party cover-up and so he should be given the opportunity to investigate that on behalf of his Party and I'm leaving that up to him. He can either do it or refuse to do it, but there is investigative work going-on just now and so he is going to look complacent and negligent if he does nothing. What does the Labour Party stand for? They should stand for "the public interest". It's up to him what he does and I won't be vexing over whether or not I get a reply from Anas Sarwar.
DeleteGeorge - If you take a look at ASCE Ethics Case Study 4 again, from 9mins - 11mins 30 secs, that explains what I am taking about. As an engineer, you cannot allow the impression to be given that something has been checked and is safe if that is not the case. The ASCE explain it, very clearly, in two and a half minutes. How long has it taken me to explain this to all of them; and they still don't get it.
ReplyDeleteSometimes people just don't want to understand.
Delete