Do you like a laugh? Do you find glee in listening to someone trying to dupe you? Have you ever had someone tried to take the rip roaring piss out of with a straight face and know that is what they are up too? If the answer to all these questions is yes, then you might find yourself in for a real treat. It seems more than highly likely that in the not too distance future the probe into SNP finances is doing to yield criminal charges. You may ask why, because it allegedly appears according to the SNP own financial accounts, that the money raised for #indyref2 isn’t in the SNP accounts. And for the purposes of ass covering the three people, Nicola Sturgeon, Peter Murrell and Colin Beattie who were arrested by Police Scotland are ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Yes, these three have the right to be considered innocent, whether as they can publicly claim they are innocent, no one can say they’re guilty because that may prejudice their right to a fair trial.
So far, two people out of three have gone on record as saying they are innocent of any wrongdoing, Nicola Sturgeon and Colin Beattie. Operation Branchform was launched in 2021 after several complaints were made to Police Scotland regarding the SNP's finances. At this point, it would remiss to not mention the ‘man of the hour’, Sean Clerkin. Although seen as a maverick and a fringe outsider, this guy has blown the SNP to bits more effectively than a 105 mm howitzer. Scotland raised an eyebrow when Police Scotland storm into the SNP and the private home of Peter Murrell and Nicola Sturgeon. We watched with interest as Police Scotland went 'the full bhoona' during their search of Sturgeon’s house with a tent erected on the front lawn and the press pack hovering about outside. We rejoiced as Police took away boxes of evidence, Poice probing SNP finances looking into designer pens, burner phones, pots and pans, and a fridge freezer among other things in a search that last 30 hours. Even teabags weren’t safe from being ‘tagged and bagged’. It was revealed Police were examining an Amazon shopping account, and 1000 allegations of fraud in relation to this fraud probe, the ‘amazon card of destiny’, lighter than the stone of destiny but with more value.
In the aftermath of the Police raid, we saw Former SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon passionately declare her innocence. Sycophants emerged from the shadows and made interventions that ‘oor Nicola’ isn’t bent, including one from her buddy SNP MP Anne McLaughlin. Flowers were organized to be sent to her, which many people found rather odd. It seems that more work was being done on ‘Nicola is innocent’ than on indyref2. One interesting point was said by Nicola Sturgeon in terms of her defence, and that she was, she was speaking for herself and herself alone. No rubber stamp of innocence was available it seems for husband, Peter Murrell; he had to do his own declarations, but is notably silent. When I heard about this, I immediately thought of the Tammy Wynette song, ‘Stand by your man’. Whether Nicola Sturgeon is standing by her man is a question which might be relevant at some future date, in the event of any possible unpleasantness.
For those who have watched Nicola Sturgeon and her political career over the years closely, you would have homed in on theme she used time and time again in relation to SNP scandals, her constant use of don’t know to any scandal.
Now, in the event of any future trial into SNP finances, and if Nicola Sturgeon is charged, it seems renewed speculation has surfaced that Nicola Sturgeon may claim she was too busy running the country to know that bizarre purchases at the centre of a criminal investigation were made with SNP funds. The claim is apparently been made by party insiders who think this is the most viable route in the event of her facing a possible criminal trial. Senior nationalist sources expect Sturgeon arrested in June, to insist she did not know that a string of assets, including a luxury motorhome seized from her mother-in-law’s driveway, were paid for by the party she led. It should be point out that Sturgeon was responsible for the SNP finances. In a trial any old tosh can be used as a defence, ‘it wisnae me’ being the most popular, ‘it was that bastard over there’ being also accepted or a combination of both. It is for a jury having been fed a story during a trial to analyse fact from fiction. It is at the end of the day for a jury to take all information/ evidence presented and mull over claims and counter claims made. However associates of Ms Sturgeon; have admitted that her claims may test the credulity of the public. The tricky problem for her lawyers is the many of the items detectives are examining were apparently seized from her own home such as a women's razor.
Does your husband use a women’s razor Ms Sturgeon? If so what for? Then there is the issue of designer pen and jewellery, and many more interesting questions which may come up.
Murray Foote, the SNP’s former media chief and now SNP CEO, told the Daily Record:
“Some of these items are more likely to be on a shopping list than on Interpol’s most wanted. The hunt for a lady’s razor does make you wonder if the police are investigating a bad case of botched beauty treatment”.
Given the humour displayed by Foote, that crack would die a death in a court, because the joke isn’t about the alleged proceeds of crime where spent, only that the money was taken. And the prospect a guilty verdict could see some people have years stuffed up their arse by a court. Have we all forgotten Natalie ‘I am innocent’ McGarry so soon? Her defence was so laughable, that a jury rather speedily concluded that her defence of being no good with numbers just wasn’t credible. It is said Senior SNP figures believed Sturgeon’s denials, claiming that “sometimes the explanation that is hard to believe is actually the one that is true”. And sometimes the opposite of denial based on emotion is more applicable, such as the duck test, this is a form of abductive reasoning, usually expressed as "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." So, what is the Senior SNP figures belief based on, fuck knows, however, it should be pointed out that in an interview years ago, Sturgeon did allegedly say that she and her husband would discuss things in the morning together before they started their day.
In the SNP finances case, the elephant in the room is not exactly an elephant, it is a campervan. This is a luxury campervan which was parked up on the driveway of Ms Sturgeon’s mother-in-law’s home in Dunfermline. Over the years we have heard how important family is to Nicola Sturgeon, but in the case of Sturgeon’s mother in law who apparently lives alone and is in her 90’s, Sturgeon’s recent claim that she rarely visited her mother-in-law is touted by her believers as “significant”. You may ask significant of what exactly;"see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"? Others apparently less generous see her comments as an attempt at “floating a possible explanation”. Begs the obvious question, would the police logs from her police protection log her as visiting the mother in law at the same time the campervan was there? I don’t know about you but if a £110k campervan was sitting in a 90 year old woman’s driveway, would you ask about it on a visit? Of course, detectives of Operation Branchform will be able to access her travel logs as part of their investigation.
Original complaint, the one that is your moneymaker right there is of course, the investigation by the police that £600,000 of donations solicited for independence campaigns that never happened had gone “missing” from party accounts. The questions of who took it, who spent and what was it spent on are rather relevant because according to the SNP own recent accounts, it appears to be gone. Words like ‘woven through the accounts’ were previously used, but if you can weave thin air of something which is gone, let me know, oh, and as far as I can tell, no one left a IOU note to pay it back in. Iain Livingstone, the former chief constable, has suggested that detectives had “moved beyond” initial complaints and were now looking at fraud, potential embezzlement and misuse of funds. When I read this, it reminded me immediately of ex SNP MP Natalie McGarry, she was an SNP official and women for indy official who pocketed tens of thousands of donations and spent them on luxury items for herself including a holiday.
“Sometimes the explanation that is hard to believe is actually the one that is true,” a senior SNP source said, and sometimes shit talk is just shit talk.
As part of her ‘innocence tour’ at the Edinburgh Fringe, when quizzed by soft interviewer
Iain Dale about whether she was confident her husband was innocent, Ms Sturgeon insisted nothing should be read into her refusal to say.
She said:
“I am not going to speak for anybody other than myself. In not answering that question, that’s not to say yes or no. I’m not going to try and speak for anyone else, whether it’s my husband or anybody else.”
Sturgeon also refused to say when she became aware of the campervan outside her mother-in-law’s house, an upmarket Niesmann + Bischoff model, which neighbours said never left the driveway. Does that mean she visited the house when the van was there, and it could be confirmed by police logs? If there are no police logs, then her mobile phones data cell tower logs could be used as evidence. Remember when police used this data to convince the killers of Kriss Donald? Your phone pings cell towers all day long.
A source has said.
“Nicola’s only conceivable defence is to say that she knew nothing about it. There had to be a reason for her agreeing to do a very public interview with Iain Dale at such a sensitive time. Her response to the question about the campervan that she never visited her mother in law was very strange. Nicola is not famous for her small talk, but even she couldn’t credibly claim that she didn’t notice a huge brand new campervan on her elderly mother-in-law’s drive or think to ask anything about it. So to say she was never there struck me as her floating a possible explanation.”
Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the Court. It is worth mentioning that it is also possible that someone else will be charged, like in football, anything can happen in 90 minutes. A new player being charged at this late date seems very doubtful. Is it possible that no one will be getting charged by the police acting under orders from the Crown; this seems highly unlikely in this situation as well! And as the Crown Office cannot accept the ‘I’m innocent’ defence like in Life of Brian, the key question is, who if anyone gets a police revisit to take them down to the station for charging?
Finally, when Alex Salmond got charged, I was shocked, unlike most of the public, I had met him on several occasions, when his case came to court, I couldn’t wrap my head around the notion he was guilty. Then later on, I found out who was accusing him, not employees spread over a vast Scottish government network, but people close to Nicola Sturgeon. I was sure that if Alex Salmond went to court, he would be found not guilty. Salmond was a threat to the Sturgeon regime, and many believe he was stitched up in an attempted to get him in prison and out of the way. Personally, in the event of any future trial involving anyone charged in the SNP finances scandal, I don’t have the same confidence or belief as I had in Alex Salmond in their ability to walk into court innocent, and more importantly, walk out innocent.
Who knows who will be charged, but I remember Natalie McGarry’s bullshit defence, and think to myself, some people better get their act together, and their act needs to be truthful, because juries are fickle, they don’t like being played or conned. As Tommy Sheridan and Natalie McGarry found to their cost, being a good talker doesn’t work in a criminal trial, something others should bear in mind.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteThe undernoted was sent to you by Protect's Bob Matheson on 28/1/19, regarding Jenny Laing's "shameful" letter of 2/8/18. As you can see, it is virtually a restatement of my opinion, expressed yesterday. I have no record of you answering Bob; I wasn't called upon to meet Aberdeen City Council, there were no questions asked in parliament and so I presume that Bob's suggested way forward was ignored?
For obvious reasons, it would be unwise to continue ignoring this. Bob identifies "Visual Inspection Reports" as being the "clearest line of interrogation" and that matter was passed, in the past few days, to Police Scotland and it is for them to decide if they wish to investigate. Specifically, if proper as-built design reviews have been substituted by Visual Inspection Reports, that indicates "reckless certification" and that is a breach of criminal law.
All that I require to know, from you, is who is pursuing my payment from the Scottish Government and replacement job? You say that you are not doing it. So, who is doing it and when will it be finished? It looks to me as if you can leave all other matters regarding Brimmond School to Police Scotland and/or Buro Happold?
Hi Jackie,
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?
These whistle-blowers are bastards you know. I reckon the Sunday Mail has access to a whistle-blower. They reported that Manchester Police are also investigation the missing £600,000.
ReplyDeleteThat could be because the SNP's accountants are based in Manchester and they have reported something, or it may be because Manchester Police are peer-reviewing the case for Police Scotland. Who knows.
Another possibility is that the initial complaint of mis-use of party funds was made by a Bank. Banks have to do this now due to money-laundering legislation brought in after the financial crash. They don't report to Police Scotland, they report to the National Crime Agency and so they may be peer-reviewing it also.
I would be a hell of a lot happier and more confident that the law remained in good hands if I saw the COPFS and the Lord Advocate remain out of sight and out of the way of Humza and all the rest of these Holyrood spoofs.
I reckon that video proves that she is not some "hands-off" executive leader who doesn't get involved in financial matters. This suggests the opposite, doesn't it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't even know who all of the alphabet woman are, but I know who H is and was she not due to face some kind of perjury investigation?
I really hope that Police Scotland use this opportunity to put some distance between themselves and those at Holyrood. I detect that respect for and confidence in Police Scotland has dropped in recent years, for that reason.
There's a big difference between the Fabiani Inquiry and the High Court. Let's all hope she finds that out the hard way. She has very few protectors nowadays and so things have changed for Sturgeon.
If I was asking questions, I certainly would relating to this video. My first one would be, did you tell members the truth about the finances, yes or no. If yes, on what basis did you make this claim. If it was no, my next question would be why did you lie to the governing body? If she said a third party said the finances were okay, I would ask who, and when. Then ask did you do your job properly as someone responsible for the accounts?
DeletePlausible deniability got her off the hook at the Fabiani Inquiry. However, that only works when there is limited evidence against you. If she is presented with strong evidence against her, the Sturgeon house of cards will collapse and it could all happen very quickly. That's the way I see it.
DeleteThey say there are now more than 20 lines of inquiry, including embezzlement. I believed wee Colin Beattie somehow. I thought he was quite plausible and didn't have that hard edge of nastiness and entitlement that Swinney and Sturgeon had. He was the banker that didn't know how to use a computer. That might be his excuse.
ReplyDeleteIf he doesn't know how to use a computer, I would seize any computer at his home, and the Scottish Parliament, he has access too. I would then get a warrant to collect data from any servers his computers logged into, plus have the hard drives checked forensically.
DeleteRe Sean Clerkin - the way the Scottish Government works is that they organize a cack-handed pile-on against anyone they don't like or anyone they see as a threat. That's what they did with Salmond and it involves the civil-service and everyone the civil-service needs to make use of. So, I don't reckon it was Clerkin as they would all have ignored him. I reckon it was the financial authorities who have pretty wide powers nowadays.
ReplyDeleteThe popularity of independence remains high at around 48%. I was really surprised by that but I have read it several times and so I accept it to be true. Will the SNP ever win any kind of election again in Scotland? That is very, very doubtful. They need to re-group quickly if they are to maintain that popularity. Under which leadership though? No-one thinks that Humza leads the Nationalist movement and Salmond is really not popular now and so that is the problem and until they solve that, their popularity is only going to go one-way.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - As you predicted some time ago, I could send Emails to Jackie and Anas for the next twenty-five years and they will continue to sit on their hands and do nothing. I suspect there is a deeply rooted political reason for that. Involve the Police and things start to happen.
ReplyDeleteThis time of the election cycle is rather bad, Westminster and Holyrood elections are just about to fall. Labour would see an opportunity here, and would be directing their entire energy into campaigning. At election time, the chances of getting helped rep help reduces dramatically. The parties effectively shut up shop for the short campaigning.
DeleteJackie Baillie's had seven and a half feckin years, George.
DeleteThe only thing Nicola Sturgeon ever excelled at was cover-ups.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking about whistle-blowers being a bunch of bastards, that video must have been released by a whistle-blower? I hope it was "Allison". If it was, she's done Scotland a big favour.
ReplyDeleteWhen something like this happens in the private sector, it is the business owner that has liability. Even if the business owner very clearly doesn't know anything about it. In Court, that is always the way it is seen.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, it will be the same. Sturgeon was seen as a very hands-on "micro-manager" and so she is going to find it very difficult to claim that she didn't know, especially when she was telling everyone that she did know.
So, if she was ordering luxury gear for her pad in Uddingston using the Amazon Card, for example, then that's a problem for her.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI have contacted Police Scotland and I have provided them with an explanation of my concerns regarding Brimmond School. My concerns appear to be shared also by Protect and the experts of the ASCE. We can now let Police Scotland investigate if any crime is being, or has been committed.
The school is now open again and so it is crucial that any questions that are asked of any of you are answered. The quicker your answers are provided, the quicker Police Scotland can make a recommendation to (presumably) Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government.
As you all know, I believe that the school is doomed for failure and that will be by either structural deformation or collapse and I made exactly the same prognosis earlier today to Police Scotland. This concern has remained with me constantly since 2014.
I am still waiting on either yourself or Mr Sarwar getting back to me to advise me what the Scottish Government propose to do to get me paid my losses and returned to work. The Scottish Government's locus is now clear? So, please respond to me today on this.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeletePolice Scotland are currently investigating whether or not "reckless" or "negligent" certification has taken place at the school, since 2016. I presume the locus of their attention will be on the two letters attached, by the Scottish Government. The crucial paragraph is highlighted on page 2 of the letter of 30/9/16. Did Buro Happold actually say that? If they didn't say that, what did they say?
If Police Scotland find that "reckless" or "negligent" certification has taken place, then that is a possible breach of criminal law.
Ergo, and if that is confirmed, then the Scottish Government will be responsible for the entirety of my losses and (presumably) the losses attributable to the rectification of the school building and the land. So, as I said, we should let Police Scotland carry-out their own thorough investigation. Whenever they contact me requesting information, I respond straight away and I would ask all of you to do the same.
I am obviously wanting to be paid and returned to work.
Dear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteOne final point for now:
I must have sent you the trailing Email about twenty or thirty times over the years? I sent it also to Police Scotland in the past couple of days. It was my first Email to Harper MacLeod, where I introduced myself as a whistle-blower and advised them to get this situation checked quickly by a geotechnical expert, or it would be too late.
They didn't get it checked and now it is too late. I had to check it myself with the ASCE 3-years later, when the subsidence had already begun. God knows how much this is going to cost to fix, but it has been needless, hasn't it?
My suggestion is that my case is considered simply on the basis of whether this Email to Harper MacLeod is right, or wrong. Frankly, I fail to understand what or who I am waiting on here?
As I say at the close of all of my Emails to you, I have incurred enormous financial losses as a result of this case. Universal Credit have a strong understanding of what these losses are and they know that they cannot be sustained indefinitely. I am not convinced that you, or any of the others, share that understanding. I think the public perception may be that I should be paid and released, now? I copy everything through to Universal Credit and I presume that would also be their recommendation?
This might be of interest.
Deletehttps://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/anger-jenny-gilruths-failure-act-30835822?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
I remember when ALCAN used to own the Invergordon Smelter, you couldn't buy any land off them, you could only lease it. Then Scotgov took over and sold half of Ben Nevis to Sanjeev Gupta for £1. That's what the 'burner phones' would have been for.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - I've had meetings with Scottish Government civil-service. These were Heads of the civil-service and so fairly representative of the standards of honesty and accountability that exist there.
ReplyDeleteBoth were essentially liars. The first chap, who was a chartered professional, more or less said to me: "If you think I'm lying, go ahead and prove it, but no-one will help you".
So, I have proved it. It has taken me 7-years and almost bankrupted me, but I sent the data to Police Scotland yesterday.
Sadly, some people in the Scottish Government are OK, but there are far too many liars and that results in everything the Scottish Government does, being subject to question. That's no use, is it?
By the way, I contacted the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday too. God knows what he'll do. Probably nothing. It just shows you though, we have layers of government and civil-service in Scotland and you end-up having to do everything yourself.
Is this worse than it was pre-Holyrood? I think it is.
"Is this worse than it was pre-Holyrood? I think it is."
DeleteI think I would 100% agree, Holyrood is a waste of money.
30-years ago, pre-Holyrood, those that were given awards in Scotland were police officers who solved a difficult case, captains of industry, educators, engineers, doctors, architects and all the rest of it. Now, it's Holyrood parliamentarians that are awarded. That's the new industry. It's the industry of doing nothing and getting paid for it.
DeleteDear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteThis morning's decision by the UK Government to close a hundred or so schools in England due to fears of structural collapse has awakened press interest in this case and, as you can all see, the public reaction to the situation in England has been predictably hostile.
The journalist involved is interested in the criminal law aspect of this case which I previously described to you as "Reckless Certification" and I attach an explanation of Reckless Certification, which was issued by Scottish Building Standards. Trailing is an Email I received from the Head of Aberdeen City Council's Building Standards team on 15/12/21 and this appears to me to be a pretty clear example of Reckless Certification.
Mr Spence ignores Buro Happold, he ignores the ASCE and just certifies it as safe! The decision sits with him! God help us all.
I'm pretty sure this chap isn't any kind of geotechnical engineer and he isn't a lawyer either and so allowing people like this make what are essentially life or death decisions, just sets the seeds for future disasters and I presume that no-one would disagree with that?
I passed this information on to Police Scotland an hour or so ago; I have given them the journalist's name and I have asked them to provide me with an incident number for this case.
I have explained that my situation was caused by Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government and so I do not want the Scottish Government to be involved in the process of arbitrating the outcome for me because to do that would be utterly farcical.
Please advise me when this is going to be done?
George - All at Scotgov, Harper MacLeod, Aberdeen City Council, Hub and Scottish Building Standards have been dealing with this case for a combined total of 33-years. Scotgov: 7.5-years, Harper MacLeod: 9-years, Aberdeen City Council: 9-years, Scottish Building Standards: 7.5 years.
ReplyDeletePolice Scotland have been dealing with it for a week. What do you think has happened? Maybe at last I have found someone who is, at last, not intent on covering it all up? The problem with this a school, and it's the same with the schools in England, is that collapse doesn't happen in slow motion and you tend not to get any warning.
George - It might be back in the Press tomorrow. Nothing's guaranteed with the Press, but the chap read out a story over the phone to me half an hour ago and it sounded fine.
ReplyDeleteKeep at it mate.
DeleteDear Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I understand the story was in today's Sunday Mail on page 12. I am just a short time back home from the meeting at Govan Police Station and so I haven't read it yet, but I believe it is in the printed version, not the on-line version.
The meeting went very well and the two Officers that I spoke to understood my explanation of artesian layers and why blocking them with clay will lead to the inevitable subsidence, deformation and collapse of the building.
The officers will seek clarification on whether I am right or wrong from Buro Happold, but they understood my concerns. I made the point that my concerns are shared with many other worldwide experts and so they will examine that situation very closely.
Police Scotland are of course the authority on crime and that was the whole purpose of my meeting today. Has a crime, or crimes, been committed and, if so, by whom.
I referred the Officers to the trailing Email from Gordon Spence of Aberdeen City Council's Building Standards Department. I am a trained and qualified engineer, as are the experts of the ASCE. Is Gordon Spence a trailed and qualified engineer? Perhaps not and that is a problem for Aberdeen City Council in terms of 'Reckless Certification'. Has Mr Spence certified the building against the advice of 40No world engineering experts?
I referred also to the meetings with Scotland's two Heads of Building Standards Bill Dodds and Stephen Garvin, which took place on 17/8/16 and 22/5/19. The minutes of both meetings are attached. Are they trained and qualified engineers? Yes, they are and so that is another problem, this time for the Scottish Government in terms of Reckless Certification'. Have Mr Dodds and Mr Garvin allowed the building to be certified to accord with Mr Spence's wishes, but against the advice of 40No world engineering experts?
The explanation for the criminal aspect of this is set-out in Scottish Building Standards document 'Client Guide' which is attached below. I am claiming that the building has been 'Recklessly Certified' because the concerns expressed, by myself and the experts of the ASCE, have been ignored by these three gentlemen. So far, it looks as though myself and the experts of the ASCE are correct and Scottish Building Standards are wrong and that can only be explained as 'Reckless Certification'.
I explained that the certification that has been carried-out by the Council relies upon 'Visual Inspection Reports' and 'Settlement Monitoring'. It is my understanding that these methods can be used to certify a flexible, non-rigid buildings or structures, for example oil platforms in the North Sea, but that these methods are most definitely not acceptable for a school building. Are we all agreed on that?
I repeated my opinion that the school may be doomed for failure now as it has been left for too long, the deterioration is progressive, cumulative and is now so obvious that the opportunity to save the building may already have passed, several years ago. That would amount to astonishing negligence by all of the parties that are involved, wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteI also explained that subsidence is not a gradual failure but, in most cases, a very, very sudden failure 'from the bottom'. I explained the Surfside failure which was due to tidal scour. What we have here is a hydraulic failure due to artesian scour.
As far as Buro Happold are concerned, I explained their role as that of the authoritative design engineer with contractual design liability for the safety of the building. I referred to the trailing Email which I sent to Buro Happold's Ian Stewart on 7/8/23. Once that Email is answered, all of us will know, authoritatively, whether Brimmond School is safe, or not. I sent that Email a month ago and so I presume it has already been answered?
One thing I pointed-out to the Officers today was that 'risk assessment' do not work in cases of compromised foundations and that is because engineers cannot inspect the condition of the soil underlying the foundations. What we can say though is that, from the evidence of Council's own Visual Inspection Reports, the soil is considerably wetter, and ergo much, much weaker, than it needs to be to support the weight of the building. That means, specifically, the strength of the soil should be 150kN/m2 and is now, when wet, less than half of that. Less than 75kN/m2. Not good, is it?
Finally, you may all be asking yourselves: "why are we all in this situation - when a whistle-blower stepped forward before construction even started and told us all it was never going to work". The trailing Email from Bruce Caldow of Harper MacLeod explains that I was a whistle-blower...no question about that...I explained the situation at the time...the contractor didn't agree with me...he (Bruce Caldow) did nothing to investigate...nothing for 8-months...and now it's too late...the school is already built. What do we all do? Hope for the best? That's the way I read this Email. I don't know if you all agree? If you do agree, then the real culprit here is Bruce Caldow, isn't it?
Dear Police Scotland,
If you can send this Email and all of the documents I sent to you yesterday (that was 3No Emails sent at approximately 9.30am on 2/9/23) to Mr ----- at Govan Police Office, that would be most helpful. It is crucially important that Mr ----- receives all information that I have sent to you without delay. He did give me his personal Email address at Police Scotland in order to expedite matters and so let me know if you want me to start using that?
Dear Natalie,
If I am correct then I, and the experts of the ASCE, have been doing Building Standards Scotland's job for them for the past 9-years and all are fortunate that I have been able to persevere for as long as I have. That has obviously not been easy; it's been needless and I am angry about it. Obviously, that ought to be paid for and I ought to be returned to work? Can I leave that with Mr McAteer. Police Scotland call me at home to discuss this case and Mr McAteer can do the same. Police Scotland's prompt action led to a meeting taking place within 24-hours, and so that is the system of communication that I prefer as it works best.
Dear Ms Winfield, Mr Baker and ICE,
ReplyDeleteI understand that Aberdeen School Project Comment and Discussion Part 2 has been taken down from the ASCE/Linkedin platform. That is disappointing as I presented the text to you a week before it was posted and asked if there was anything you wished to amend and I received no reply.
It can only assume that it was taken down because you find something objectionable about what the respondents advise should be done and, from any kind of public interest perspective, that is concerning. It strikes me that they are only saying what I have been saying? You have ignored me and now you are ignoring them?
Do you propose to ignore every colleague in world engineering who does not agree with you and do you really think that will work?
What it means by default is that we proceed with option 2, where the "Description of Problem" is explained by yourselves, instead of the ASCE? I attach Part 1 and the current Part 2 with this Email. As I said earlier, it would have been far easier to have let it run to its own conclusion and it was well on its way to doing that.