On the 31st July 2023, I did a blog post called ‘political death looms in Rutherglen’, my contention was that the by-election on paper seemed to be a ‘shoo in’ for the Labour Party. The Labour Party traditionally pulls in a sizeable vote in this constituency, and here is a link to wiki to see this information. Fast forward 3 months later, and indeed the result confirm my theory that the shoo in result was to be correct. The defeat of the SNP wasn’t a mystery, the Labour Party worked the area solidly for six months; this means they were highly active in the two phases of the campaign, the long campaign and the short campaign. Their activists worked to win the seat for the Labour Party, was seeded entirely in the long campaign as the party managed to garner 17,845 votes. The SNP vote on the other hand went from 23,775 to 8,399, a total collapse of support in a tale of two campaigns of contrast. The Labour Party threw people, money and resources at Rutherglen, the three key elements that make up the “political economy”, they “outspent” the SNP in every critical area. The SNP who historically were very good at by-election were reduced to using their “payroll vote” as ordinary political activists have deserted the party.
Down below, I will put up the numbers of the voters for each candidate and here is a link to my earlier post.
https://thelairdreport.blogspot.com/2023/07/political-death-looms-in-rutherglen-snp.html
By-elections traditionally are a vehicle to give the government in power a bloody nose, and the SNP certainly got one in a huge 20 per cent swing to Scottish Labour. The SNP is as I have said an lgbt controlled party which at present is fronted by a Muslim, Humza Yousaf. Yousaf is a Sturgeon proxy, in Rutherglen one thing missing, very noticeably was Nicola Sturgeon. Although Yousaf is the leader on paper, his position isn’t secure, he isn’t popular with the public despite a Sturgeonesque makeover to make him appear acceptable. Humza Yousaf looks more like a caretaker leader each day, caretaking for Nicola Sturgeon return. Nicola Sturgeon knows that if Humza Yousaf falls her prospects for survival in a Kate Forbes’ SNP world are reduced considerably. In the previous election contest for SNP leader allegations of a possible rigged contest circulated on social media as everything seemed geared towards a Humza Yousaf win. Despite this, the win by Yousaf with the entire Sturgeon lgbt machine wasn’t decisive for him, the worst candidate won, and was seen to have won.
Michael Shanks from Scottish Labour overwhelmingly won the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election due to a huge run in time along with other advantages. In 2024, he seems a clear favourite to retain the seat; it is unlikely that a continuation of a Humza Yousaf leadership will recover circa 15,000 lost votes. Today for the SNP is a day of excuses, the reality is the SNP is as I said over a decade ago, was turned into a rat ship. Alex Salmond was asleep at the wheel as a sub organization was built up all around him, the LGBT wing who waited to Salmond stepped down than acted as Nicola Sturgeon’s gatekeepers. As I also pointed out, four groups make up the SNP, LGBT, Muslim, Sein Fein Lite and the Rich, little is known about the Rich who remain in the background and away from the day to day operations of the party. The other three groups vie for power, expect to see more Muslim candidates because the ‘diversity’ campaign by Humza Yousaf will be coming down the pipeline. When Yousaf did his anti white people in top jobs speech, you must have known that diversity meant Scottish Muslims and Muslims of Pakistani descent, not Poles, Chinese, Norwegians or East Europeans. The diversity campaign blog is for another day; today is mostly about Rutherglen and Hamilton West.
If Michael Shanks is smart, he will get himself setup, office etc, and his first order of business is to restart his election campaign to be in place before xmas 2023, work out the kinks, he won’t have the manpower afforded him in the by-election. Shanks needs to cement his victory, as some people know I did Paul Sweeney’s campaign in 2017, this overturned the biggest SNP majority in the city of Glasgow, two years later, he lost the seat. I worked on both campaigns, although in the second campaign I started late and had to leave early for health reasons. What I saw in the second campaign was problems in how the campaign was being run, but there was more to this loss than just the events in the short campaign. Although I passed on my thoughts on campaigning, the Labour Party isn’t a vehicle that accepts new ideas readily, and the lack of ability to adapt ruined Paul Sweeney’s chances in 2019, couple with the SNP who actually did some work to recover lost ground. Although I give advice, I accept not all people are willing to take it onboard, and losing is never a good time to remind them I told you so. But that is politics, you play your cards your way, and sometimes you get beat, Paul Sweeney didn’t deserved to lost, but the essential ground work wasn’t done to cement his victory, a lesson painfully learned. I went to get him elected in 2021; he sits as a list MSP in Holyrood for the Glasgow region.
One
aspect of the campaign of note was the result for the Conservatives; they lost
their deposit, with Thomas Kerr finishing on 1,192. From what I could tell and
from what I learned from members inside the party, the party leadership didn’t
rally their membership effectively to come out as activists, they didn’t put
the work in during the long campaign, and managed to lose circa 7,000 votes.
What the Conservatives in the Glasgow region need is new leadership, a new
engagement strategy with members and a new campaign model to get ordinary
members active. You don’t win seats during the short campaign; you need to work
an area 10 months minimum, during the year. To go from 8,054 to 1,192 is to be blunt ridiculous.
It has been voted that Conservatives voters switched to the Labour Party to
rout the SNP and get rid of them, but I seriously doubt that to be true to any
significant number.
14 people stood in the by-election, a huge number each paying a £500 deposit; only two candidates get their money back. By-elections can be incredible fun, but more than that, they are a very useful learning tool for activists to gain practical experience and also learn from others. I am a big fan of by-elections, the more you do; the better and sharper you are, when meeting people. The wooden spoon of the evening went to Garry Cooke who amassed 6 votes, but in reality there can be only one winner, like showbiz, politics can be a tough gig. Learn to live with disappointment because at sometime, you will experience it politically. Politics isn’t about the best candidate winning, it’s about who tells the best story.
This by-election was caused by a petition to remove Margaret Ferrier after she broke Covid rules. Since Nicola Sturgeon was trying to appear tough on covid rule breakers, she flung Ferrier under the bus for political reasons. The decision to do so is telling about Nicola Sturgeon, she is a vicious horrible nasty individual. Just as Sturgeon got rid of Ferrier who won Rutherglen and Hamilton West for the SNP in 2019, it seems that the weight of destiny may see the SNP into the reality that it has to get rid of Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola Sturgeon is still under police investigation since her arrest as is her husband and the SNP treasurer. £600k of indyref 2 funds is gone, and someone or others has to be held to account. You can’t walk back from missing money, or use a bullshit excuse to get off the hook. Of course, we must have a link to Rishi Sunak’s epic quip on Nicola Sturgeon, she done a lot of harm to Scotland and its people, that is historical fact, but this is worth a laugh.
The turn-out was particularly low in this by-election, and the news reports with ordinary people showed why, they are sick of the political class who are making their lives bad to worse. Only just 30,531 people could be bothered to vote;, only 37.19 per cent of the eligible electorate is the damning indictment of this election. I personally favour compulsory voting because it would force the political class to up their game considerably. Although voter ID was required in this election, ironically this is being used as one of the excuses why the SNP lost. The National (SNP pravda) is actively looking for people turned away from polling stations for having no ID to explain away SNP defeat. Do you think 15,000 former SNP voters were turned away from polling stations? A more viable reason is that the Scottish National Party has become the party of the crook, the party of the deviant, the party of the nonce and the leading anti woman party in Scotland.
Basically the SNP is a stinking cesspool of low grade humanity.
Finally, I noticed on twitter that Iona fyfe was having a dig at the Scottish Family Party for gaining 319 votes as if that is some sort of judgement on the party, and its candidate Niall Fraser. The Scottish Family Party pretty much stood on a single issue, their result was 1.05% of the vote. The party seems happy, they are trying to establish a brand, but perhaps they may make a wider policy platform to have more appeal in future contests. Iona Fyfe who is referred to as #Bignose by some on social media isn’t a fan, I assume it is maybe because she is woke and buys into this trans debate nonsense that a man can become a woman. Iona Fyfe has her critics, as this tweet makes an opinion on her lifestyle. Fyfe has been hanging around the SNP leadership for possible personal advancement, just in case the singing career doesn’t pan out, as the old saying goes, opinions vary! Although the win was solid for Scottish Labour, a single by-election of this type isn’t tablets of stone of future success, but I would say, Michael Shanks has a better than decent chance of retaining the seat in 2024, I doubt the SNP can recover in Rutherglen and Hamilton West to make a real challenge at the next election. Here is the full result, enjoy, large field but no Alba candidate, they obviously think their united for indy candidate strategy is still something worth pursuing, it isn’t.
RUTHERGLEN
AND HAMILTON WEST RESULT IN FULL
Michael
Shanks (Lab) 17,845 (58.55%, +24.08%)
Katy
Loudon (SNP) 8,399 (27.56%, -16.64%)
Thomas
Kerr (C) 1,192 (3.91%, -11.06%)
Gloria
Adebo (LD) 895 (2.94%, -2.25%)
Cameron
Eadie (Green) 601 (1.97%)
David
Stark (Reform) 403 (1.32%)
Niall
Fraser (Scot Family) 319 (1.05%)
Bill
Bonnar (SSP) 271 (0.89%)
Colette
Walker (IFS) 207 (0.68%)
Christopher
Sermanni (TUSC) 178 (0.58%)
Andrew
Daly (Ind) 81 (0.27%)
Ewan
Hoyle (Volt) 46 (0.15%)
Emperor
of India Prince Ankit Love (ND) 34 (0.11%)
Garry
Cooke (ND) 6 (0.02%)
The other way of looking at Sunak's wise-crack (which he delivered very well) is that he has been tipped-off. Those close to Branchform say it is 50/50 whether charges will be brought or not, but maybe the Police are just hedging their bets. Now that it is perceived that the public don't really like the SNP that much, we may see the odds improve.
ReplyDeleteTwo things about the SNP: I thought that Forbes was easily the most outstanding candidate. Undoubtedly Scottish, honest and likeable. She was obviously relieved not to have won the ballot in the end and I expect that once the dust settles, she will be moved to the leadership position.
Secondly, I spent a lot of time in Kings Park and Rutherglen when I was growing up and I knew the Ferrier family and she was a pretty good MP. Not the best by any means but steady and the SNP must rue the day they sacked her.
It was Sturgeon and Swinney that did so much damage to Nationalism and the SNP. Were it not for them, this would never have happened. All eyes are on Sturgeon but I hope I live long enough to see Swinney being lifted.
ReplyDeleteThe Labour Part vote actually went down at Rutherglen. Less people voted for them than voted at the last GE and that includes a large number of Tory and LibDem voters that transferred their votes to Labour on this occasion just to get the SNP out. So, it's not as emphatic as everyone is saying it is. I am not a Nationalist, but family members are and even they know that Independence is over for the next 20-years. They are afraid to even talk about it in public and so it's going to be tough going campaigning for the SNP in future, isn't it. It's the SNP Conference in a week's time; that will show the current health of the Party. My expectation is that it could be facing bankruptcy within the next year or two. So, it's been an implosion worse than that suffered by Labour and everyone knows that when it finally happens, there will be nothing left to rescue because everything of value and substance has been sucked out of the Party these past 10-years. Salmond could perhaps buy the name "SNP" (I'm not sure he can do that) but that would be some justice for him. The only names that I can think of with credibility in the bank are Salmond himself, MacAskill, Ewing and maybe Forbes. Not nearly enough, is it? Ironically, their association with the Greens has been a really bad idea and has brought them nothing but trouble. I'm finding it hard to find any redeeming features in the current SNP. As for the bloggers, Wings and Laird and all the rest of them, you have been dismissed and called cranks and fanatics and all the rest of it. That is easy to do nowadays and so it is quite appealing. You can see a variety of lightweights, Kelly Given for example, do this. But the bloggers have been proven right, haven't they.
ReplyDeleteYes, we have, being ahead of the narrative is hard, you get abuse for it. I remember when in the SNP saying adopt Nato, howled down, did it publicly on the BBC so there is a record of that. The SNP pack didn't like that, someone thinking for themselves, the SNP leadership switched.
DeleteOnly 37% of the people turned up. Because the public is simply tired of them all, Li@Bour did not really deserve this triumph.
ReplyDeleteThey did 6 months hard campaigning, they worked for that win. The real stories are why did 15k voters leave the SNP, and why did the SNP and others play up that other parties voters switched in huge numbers.
DeleteI was just reading that in the UK as a whole, Labour are expected to win a landslide victory at the next GE. Boris Johnson was a liar and a crook - he wasn't responsible for the entire melt-down, but he was responsible for some of it. Maybe he was the first collapsing domino and after him nothing was going to arrest the decline. Labour are also terrible, but I suppose the public have either forgiven them, forgotten how bad they are, or decided the Tories are worse than Labour. Who knows.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - I'll give you a run-down on the sinking school: We may only be days away from a conclusion now. Yesterday's heavy rain in Glasgow will occur today in Aberdeen and that will result in flooding again as it does every winter.
ReplyDeleteThe last letter I sent to Ms Winfield may turn out to be the crucial letter. It was copied to Police Scotland, the ICE and the HSE.
When you're driving your car and are pulled-over by Police Scotland and asked for your MOT certificate, you cannot say to them: "I don't have an MOT certificate but this car was inspected by my uncle's pal who says this car may bad but there is nothing wrong with it".
Public buildings are the same and if you don't comply with the legal standards, then stop right there and close the school until you do comply.
I am remembering that you are due to be paid, along with the ASCE and Protect.
As you may have gathered, I am not really political but the politics of this have fascinated me over the years. Surely the Labour Party should just have said: "Get this school fixed and get the whistle-blower paid and back to work". What's so complex about that?
As I say, I'm hoping that it is finished this week.
problem in Scotland with all political parties is long term vision was replaced by short term knee jerk politics for optics, of the moment.
DeleteWhat I think everyone forgets is that this country will never be the same again after the banking crash. That added a thousand Billion to the National debt and although Chancellors one after the other have reassured the markets that the UK always pays its debts, that is increasingly difficult and that is the real reason HS2 is being cancelled. That crisis would probably have happened anyway, whatever the colour of the government, but it happened to be under Labour and that just finished them off for a decade and a half. But, they have some resilience due to their size and they are making a return. Not exactly a welcome return though is it. No-body's enthusiastic about it.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - I'll give you a set of statistics that you might find shocking. This is the number of people that I have had to had to compete with over the years:
ReplyDelete2No Professors of Law
3No Doctors of Engineering
Approximately 20No lawyers
9No civil engineers
9No MSP's (including 4No Ministers)
Approximately 20No Company Directors
14No Senior Civil-Servants
7No Council Officials
The Law Society of Scotland
The Institution of Civil Engineers
That's a grand total of 86No individuals and I'll bet you there were a good few more than that. It's what's called a "pile-on" or a "cack-handed pile-on".
On my side, I've had 44No experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers, Protect and yourself. The difference was that I was truthful and my experts were truthful and the Scottish Government's experts were not truthful. Take a look at that list. They have all been lying? (very sad, isn't it)
That tells me that what is going-on in Scotland vis a vis public procurement is not in the public interest and that all of the above came pretty close to killing members of the public.
Do you think that is an exaggeration - or is it about right?
Some say education is valuable, given the state of this long drawn out saga, it shows that ethics are even more valuable.
DeleteGeorge - Your own experience with Professor Rennie shows that they get to work on your credibility straight away. You are credible, but they work on it and create the allusion that you are less credible, they put a "smell" on you as lawyers say, and then it is a question of who do you trust? Of course the public will always trust the lawyer.
ReplyDeleteThe scenario just now is just the same, it's my credibility versus their credibility. The difference is the allusion is being tested. So, if I win, it stands to be bad news for all 86No of them. How have they managed to all stay in great jobs for the past 9-years? They lie and they cover each others backs, don't they. So, my case and your case are really very similar.
I learned at University that there was more crooks than I ever met in my scheme of Pollok.
DeleteSadly, you have alighted on something here. When Mr Swinney says: "We have taken legal advice", he is right but the legal advice was wrong. In any case, you don't ask a Glasgow University lawyer about complex engineering. No-one else in the world would do that.
DeleteIt's who takes over from Humza? Forbes, Regan or maybe Flynn. There's something of the night about Flynn; a gangster in the mould of Swinney. If they need some of that in the leadership role, and maybe they do, then Flynn may be the man. But, the momentum of decline is so strong, I think it could overtake and outrun all the SNP strategists. The public don't want them any more and it's debatable whether they really want Labour. Those with anything but the shortest of memories will see the same bullying and dishonesty that have always blighted that Party.
ReplyDeleteIt has to be Kate Forbes, everyone else is a pack follower
DeleteGeorge - I'm still waiting. I was expecting a call on Monday and that didn't happen and then again nothing yesterday, but it will be soon.
ReplyDeleteYou may remember Alastair Campbell's "4 stages of dealing with a whistleblower". I have mentioned it a few times already:
1. Deny it.
2. Deny it again.
3.Discredit the whistleblower.
4.Agree with the whistleblower and say that it has all been a misunderstanding.
This has been an exemplar case, hasn't it. Although, you have to ask what motivates each of them (the 86No listed above) to do this? There have been many silver bullets that should have made them act, but the effective silver bullet has been the possible criminal charge of "reckless certification". That means that only one or two people will, or could be, questioned initially.
Dear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI offered to meet with Harper MacLeod on Monday or Tuesday of this week. I presume that offer has been declined and so we appear to be waiting only on Buro Happold?
Each time I have access to Emails blocked for a period of time, I find that a number of Emails have disappeared and it has now happened twice. I have made a report to Police Scotland already on the subject of Brimmond School and I will not be returning on account of this, but it is clearly not acceptable. If this case becomes the subject of an Inquiry, then all Emails that I have sent over the piece are already held in a secure website. So, blocking and removing Emails in this way (may) gain the Scottish Government some respite, but an Inquiry's perception of it would be pretty damning.
The Police Scotland opinion on the potential "Reckless Certification" of Brimmond School was sent to me on 11/9/23 and I sent it on to you for your action. The "independent" as-built design check that Police Scotland recommended can be carried-out by Buro Happold, as long as it is by a different office or team than produced the initial design. That is in compliance with SBS rules and Buro Happold should have done that by now.
The "Site 85" example that was sent to you shows the amount of communication that is required and the speed at which everyone is expected to work, including senior Government Ministers, when a whistleblowing case involving the stability of any public building or structure is reported. The telecoms mast was rectified within 8-months and, during these 8-months, 44No stages of re-design and remediation took place. At Brimmond it has taken 108-months to carry-out just 4No stages, meaning that it will take you just short of 100 years to conclude to stage 44No. This is just the most shocking failure of engineering that I have ever personally encountered and frankly it disgraces everyone; even I am embarrassed by it now.
The "Site 85" example shows all that parliamentarians should do in situations like this is take guidance from experts and the experts in this case are Buro Happold.
Dear Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar,
Professor Rennie of Harper MacLeod explained the "locus" of my whistle-blowing dispute in his Email to me of 20/12/19. He reviewed the case and confirmed that I have no remaining dispute either with Ogilvie Construction or Harper MacLeod and that is what I thought and Mr McAteer thought and that is what I explained to you. My dispute is with all of the parties that I reported this to as a whistle-blower and they are Aberdeen City Council, Hub and the Scottish Government. Professor Rennie also advised Scottish Government Ministers on this case and so the subject of Scottish Government "locus" is thus settled.
From a personal perspective, if my claims had been properly investigated at the time, then I would have emerged with my credibility undamaged and would have found future employment very, very easily. As it is, and due to the refusal of others to act, I have been left to do the investigation alone and my credibility is now so badly damaged that I cannot find employment anywhere and that has been and is a very big problem for me. You can understand that, can't you? I have explained that to Universal Credit and I explained it by telephone to Mr McAteer last week and they both understand it. Can I ask that you do something about this? Specifically, if Buro Happold accept that the undernoted warning to Harper MacLeod of 13/9/14 should have been checked at the time but, for whatever reason, wasn't checked, then that vindicates me.
ReplyDeleteNeither of you are engineers and so if you let the engineers of Buro Happold speak, they will either support me, or they will not and if they support me then this matter can be ended today.
CONCLUSION:
1. The safety of the school is to be determined by Buro Happold and advised to constituency MSP's Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar. That will conclude either that the school is stable (compliant) or it is unstable (non-compliant). If it is the latter, and that is the expected outcome, then "Reckless Certification" may indeed have occurred, but that will be for Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar to pursue with Police Scotland, should they wish to do so. Buro Happold will advise a strategy for fixing the school, if indeed it can be fixed at this stage.
2. My outcome is dependent upon 1. above and if Buro Happold support my prognosis, as all other geotechnical engineers have, then I will expect to receive payment of my losses and a replacement job, from the Scottish Government. Personally speaking, I have no problems in dealing with Mr McAteer and I regard him as a lawyer who puts the public first and had the Scottish Government been prepared to listen to both Mr McAteer and myself, and take us seriously, when we met them on 17/8/16, then this disaster would have been averted.
George - The "secure website" is here, of course. It's like "Line of Duty" the only difference is it's bent lawyers, instead of bent coppers. That's my reading of it.
ReplyDeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteI want to report that the Email I sent last night "Brimmond School, Aberdeen - Buro Happold" has just been deleted from my record of sent items. That's everything deleted, from 5th October.
I have done enough and I am requesting an outcome solution is found today that removes me from any further involvement in this case. Deleting Emails on the subject of public safety is the work a delinquent Government and these people are not fit to be in charge.
I attach another copy of "Site 85 - Summary". This shows how serious professionals handle situations like this. If you look out for the alignment of the Saudi Police, the mast owner STC, His Excellency the Director of Public Security, Colonel Hamoud of the Saudi Ministry of Interior, the PM/CM Proger SpA and the flow of information between all parties. It's pretty impressive stuff, isn't it?
It's an act of desperation by the Scottish Government and in KSA, and many other countries, it would be met with prison time for all associated with it.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteI note that interference with my Email account is continuing. As I explained yesterday, all of my Emails going back to 2018 are held by Mr George Laird and the location of his site is trailing.
If this continues and all of my "sent items" are erased, they will still be accessible and any member of the public that has an interest in the safety of Brimmond School can review what I said to whom and when, from the pages of this site.
I think that Mr Laird may be due some recognition for his remarkable persistence? He is not an engineer, but he managed to understand the concept of "blocking the continuity of confined artesian flows", that appears to have escaped many senior engineers that have been involved thus far.
I am sending this to all of you so that you all have this crucial information. I am only waiting on an outcome (presumably that will come from Mr McAteer) that gets me paid and back to work and I hope that he is receiving any assistance he requires from the rest of you?
George - It would perhaps be a test of anyone patience to do this, but by scrolling back over the months and years of this case, the "bent lawyers" are identified and Mr McAteer is not one of them.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds in earnings; that situation must now be brought to an end and I am satisfied that Mr McAteer understands that.
This has been 9-years of my life wasted. Can you make sure this case is resolved on my behalf and do it now, please? As I see it, that has been a failure of Government to protect the public interest.
I haven't noticed any further interference with my Email account.
Dear Ms Baillie, Mr Sarwar, Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI understand that "Storm Bebet" will affect the Aberdeen area on Thursday with a rainfall of 4" - 6" expected, on already wet ground. Presumably, you are aware of this? I have been warning of this type of scenario for the past number of years.
If Police Scotland's request for additional information has not been answered, and the action is with Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar to do that, then the impression is given that all of you acquiesce to Mr Swinney's letter of 20/12/17 attached.
As you all know, some of the most respected figures in world engineering have reviewed this case and none of them agree with Mr Swinney. If they are right and Mr Swinney is wrong, then the safety of the public is at risk as a consequence of that.
Dear Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar,
I was expecting someone to contact me last week and no-one did. Whistle-blowers are supposed to be given top-priority and dealt with in 1 - 8 weeks. Can you ensure that someone contacts me today, please? I am waiting on a call.
George - he UK "epicentre" of Storm Babet is in he high ground west of Aberdeen. It is unusual for it to be on the east coast but for it to be specifically located there is bad luck.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that the building will collapse on Thursday, but what I am saying is that the already weakened soil will be weakened still further until a deformation, or collapse, is inevitable.
A deformation, or collapse, might happen slowly with plenty of warning, but it might happen quickly. Some honesty from our MSP's might be the order of the day, today? I think they've all had long enough.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteThe UK "epicentre" of Storm Babet was forecast to be in the hills 20 miles west of Brimmond School yesterday; it has moved slightly and it is now forecast to be 20 miles south of Brimmond School, near Inverurie. It is ironic that out of the whole UK land-mass, the epicentre can be this close.
This storm might, or might not cause a collapse, but it will cause differential settlement to occur that the Scottish Government's Visual Inspection Reports will somehow fail to notice. It will also cause a reduction in the density of the soil supporting the weight of the school, due to scour, and that will hasten its eventual collapse. So, regardless of whether it happens tomorrow or later, it is bound to happen.
Therefore, the prognosis which I have been explaining and repeating endlessly since 2014 is now upon you. It happens suddenly and that is traditionally the way engineering failures occur.
As I explained last week, I have been copying my Emails to Mr George Laird who is a member of the public that I have never met or spoken to. He represents the "public view" if you like. He is interested in the case, but he is not an engineer or a lawyer. He has witnessed it inch-along slowly for the past 6-years and he is of the opinion that it failed because "professional ethics" have not been respected.
That is quite an indictment for all of you and it is one which I agree with. The fact that his opinion, and my opinion, might represent the public view on the matter may affect the way this is followed-up should the public be faced with high costs for fixing or replacing this building. They really shouldn't be faced with any additional costs, should they?
I along with the American Society of Civil Engineers have given you all a lesson in engineering and professional ethics (would that be fair?) and now it is for all of you to take it from here as the assistance from us is now over. Fixing the school is for all of you now.
Dear Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteAlmost all of the 1500No Emails sent so far have been sent to Ms Baillie. Only a handful should have been required and so something has gone wrong, hasn't it.
I recently demonstrated how an identical situation is handled by the Police and Government in a typical overseas country - a much larger country than Scotland. Police Scotland's response was similar to their Police Department's response and that was what I was expecting. However, the Scottish Government response has been grossly dishonest from the start and that is why this initiative has failed. I am tempted to ask what is the point of the Scottish Government? What do they do that wasn't done with a lot more accountability, before? It appears to be arrogant and vapid amateurs and liars who are in charge of everything and they will inevitably end-up getting members of the public killed.
I have described this to Ms Baillie countless times and she never responds and so we have reached this sad terminus.
There is a list of more than 85No people who have been involved in refusing to investigate this properly. I can name each of them. Each has held-on to his/her job and a few have even been promoted. I am the only person who has been left without a job and yet it is I that has been left to investigate this properly and that is clearly putrid and unacceptable from any kind of democratic perspective.
I spoke to Mr McAteer 2-weeks ago and I asked him to bring this case to an outcome for me. That means that I want to be paid all of my losses and for those that have assisted me to be paid and I have requested a replacement job and that can either be in this country, or overseas. He agreed to do that but he hasn't called me back since. I presume that he's waiting on you?
I explained to Mr McAteer that the Scottish Government is responsible for my losses and it's as simple as that. Can I ask that you contact him, if you haven't already done so, and offer him the assistance he requires?
I would very much like to have this resolved by tomorrow (Friday). A lot happens in 9-years and Mr McAteer has that detail and you don't and so I am asking you to do what he requires. There is absolutely no need for this to be extended beyond the end of this week.
George - "Criminal negligence is conduct which is such a departure from what would be that of an ordinary prudent or careful person in the same circumstance as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life or an indifference to consequences."
ReplyDeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteI have not seen the school after yesterday's heavy rain but I would anticipate the land is flooded with groundwater? We are therefore witnessing the prelude to structural deformation as explained in EC7. How does an experienced Government deal with a situation like this?
I attach again "Site 85 - Summary", by the Government of Saudi Arabia. If you take a look at item 44 from 6/12/17, that is when the original Contractor SBG (Saudi BinLadin Group), was replaced by CRCC (China Railway Construction Corporation). The dated photograph shows the required work being carried-out 2-weeks later on 20/12/17. Their Government strategy was to identify who was causing the delay, SBG in this case, and replace them. That sends out the right signal and things start to move again instantly, as the example shows.
Coincidentally, 20/12/17 is also the date of Mr Swinney's letter on the subject of Brimmond School (also attached) and this appears to be the root-cause of the stasis. One letter from Mr Swinney is all it takes to stop all of you from doing your job? Where else in the world would that happen?
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
Can I assume that you are currently pursuing the Scottish Government on my behalf? I am copying this to Universal Credit as I expect to be paid and working again very soon and it is your responsibility to get that done for me.
George - It may be helpful if I post the minutes from the meeting of 17/8/16.
ReplyDeleteAs you can see, everything that is happening now was predicted to happen and if the Scottish Government had taken this matter seriously and investigated it properly, insurance would have paid.
Instead, they did nothing and I had to investigate it myself with the ASCE.
This was always going to happen and it is explained below:
MEETING 1. 17th August 2016
In Attendance: XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, Jonathan Moore (Scottish Government), Bill Dodds (Scottish Government)
1) BD stated that the foundations were designed on a presumed available bearing capacity of 150kN/m2. SD stated that the Fairhurst SI recommends: 'The presence of shallow and potentially upwelling groundwater on the site reduces the available bearing capacity to <75kN/m2.
2) SD stated that the Fairhurst SI report contains a number of recommendations regarding control of water table levels. SD referred to an Email from Fairhurst which stated that standard foundations would not be suitable, and another which stated that if a permanent land drainage system could not be installed then a piled foundation would be necessary.
3) SD referred to 2No photographs which tend to show the water-table level at or near ground level at different areas of the site.
4) BD stated that the water ponding along the southern pedestrian footpath was not due to up-welling water. SD accepted that but stated that it did represent water table level along that section of the school.
5) A photograph was displayed showing the water-table level at or near ground level at the west end of the site.
6) JM stated that the previous flooding was due to blocked field drains which had since been repaired.
7) BD stated that the design was in accordance with BSI Design Standards. SD referred to Table 1 of BS 8004 and stated that the design was not in compliance. He referred also to the statement within BS 8004 that a rising water table results in a minimum 50% reduction in available bearing capacity. On this basis, BuroHappold's design factor of safety is reduced, or perhaps removed completely.
8) SD stated that both BuroHappold and Fairhurst advised Ogilvie to protect the natural drainage routes and had warned against carrying-out deep excavations below the water table. B- stated that the water table was at 1-2m; SD stated that the contamination excavations were at 5m along the full west elevation of the site.
9) SD stated that the photographs of flooding tended to show water which had a silt content indicating that the flooding had been caused by ground-water and not surface water. JM stated that the colour could be explained by silt washing off the topsoil.
10) The photographs shown at the meeting were taken in November 2015 and March 2016. SD stated that it was not raining on the days the photographs were taken and that there had been no flooding in Aberdeen on these days.
11) JM stated that it was relatively common on new buildings to find surface water drainage problems.
sadly this is the state of Scotland, people have to do everything for themselves to get something fixed
Delete12) Fairhurst SI is the property of Aberdeen City Council and is the stage 1 interpretative report with recommendations. The foundations were designed to the Ground Engineering SI report of 2013. This report contains no recommendations.
ReplyDelete13) SD stated that some of the ground-water was travelling under the site from west to east under hydrostatic pressure. This can cause scour and soil collapse to occur. Maximum effect is when the hydrostatic pressure is equal to or greater than the weight of overburden.
14) A BuroHappold drawing was examined showing a 60mm drop in level between the low point of the kerb and the south corner. The photograph from March 2016 was examined and SD stated that the drop in level now looked to be in excess of 300mm. SD stated that approximately 25m3 of soil had been lost due to either soil collapse or scour last winter.
15) JM explained the explained the operation of the SER certification scheme for structural design and stated that all the certificates had been issued by BuroHappold and Warrants then duly issued by Aberdeen City Council. SD accepted the explanation and stated that the design was failing due to a design change instructed on site by Ogilvie and not advised to either BuroHappold or Aberdeen City Council's building control department.
16) SD was asked why he thought piling rather than pad foundations was the best design option. SD referred to the SI report which recommends 'abnormal founding options'.
17) GMcA suggested Professor Albert Rodger from Aberdeen University would be able to provide an independent and expert opinion. SD stated that he was one of the foremost geotechnical engineers in the country and his specialism was geotechnical dynamics, which was the specific problem at Brimmond. JM stated that Ramsay and Chalmers of Aberdeen had already provided an independent opinion and found no sign of subsidence either within the school buildings or within the playgrounds.
18) There is no sign of flooding at the moment. G.McA asked if it was likely to rise again in the winter and asked if everyone at the meeting was prepared to wait for that.
19) G.McA stated that the CDM Regulations apportion specific responsibilities to client, designers and contractor.
20) SD asked who has design liability now.
21) BD stated that all contaminated soil had been tested prior to removal. SD stated that the BuroHappold report of July 2014 complained that too much soil had been removed on the basis of olfactory evidence alone and that olfactory evidence is not testing. An extract from the BuroHappold report shows that 1200m3 had been removed on the basis only of olfactory evidence.
22) SD stated that it was important that this report was reviewed because the report and the reactions of the respective parties to that report was crucial in his termination by Ogilvie.
23) 2No photographs were displayed - one showed gross contamination at a depth of 1m. The other showed a 4m deep excavation with no sign of gross contamination. SD did not question that there was contamination on the site - only how much there actually was. Only gross contamination needs to be removed.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteWe have no doubt reached the stage where MSP's are saying: "We're not engineers and we don't understand what is happening here". Engineering is supposed to be in safe hands and so the focus of attention moves to Buro Happold and their Professional Institution, the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Shortly after the last Press story on Brimmond School, the attached Visual Inspection Reports were issued by Hub via Aberdeen City Council to allay fears that the building could collapse and the events of the past few days will have given extra weight to those fears. Ms Baillie asked for proper checks to be carried-out and these are the checks the Council provided.
They are not proper checks of course, but they have somehow managed to gain acceptance. By your silence over the past two-years, it is fair to say that you have all accepted them? That's the way it is normally seen to work: silence equals acquiescence. I received them in December 2021 and I didn't accept them. I overmarked them with my comments and returned them to the Council. I was expecting an iterative process of checking, commenting and re-checking to follow, but Hub instructed the Council not to respond and so that never happened. By all means take a look at the comments and the photographs vis a vis the situation that has developed at the school over the past few days. Do the events of the past few days come as a shock to any of you, because they really shouldn't?
These Reports were issued by Aberdeen City Council and not by the Contractor and so responsibility for ensuring the building doesn't collapse now lies with the Council, and ergo the Scottish Government. It doesn't lie with the Contractor. I have never understood why the Council and the Scottish Government elected to do this as it permanently disengages the insurance cover. I advised them not to do it at the time, but they went ahead and did it anyway.
The point of this Email is to explain that if any engineer has misled the public by leaving the impression that this building is safe, and it is not safe, then it is that engineer who may be held accountable for that in a Court. Have the engineers done that? I think they have, but what would a reasonably cautious member of the public think? What would Police Scotland think? - these are the questions.
Finally, I have referred to the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse precedent case, ASCE Ethics Case Study 4, many times over the years and I did that because I wanted to avoid the situation you all find yourselves in now. When a building starts to fail, there is nothing that can be done to prevent it from happening. I have explained that very clearly and how the Institution of Civil Engineers and Buro Happold can ignore it is beyond my understanding. They are seen as the "leaders" in UK engineering and if they disregard that advice, the expected reaction of the others will be to disregard it too and that is tragic, from any serious engineering standpoint.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI sent Mr McAteer the minutes of the 17/8/16 meeting which took place with the Scottish Government, on Friday. He attended the meeting and if he confirms that it constitutes a Scottish Government "locus", and he is an Advocate lawyer, then I presume that advice will be respected by all at the Scottish Government?
My claim for loss of earnings and a replacement job is against the Scottish Government and I am waiting to be advised by Ms Baillie MSP on that. The Scottish Government meeting took place in 17/8/16 and we knew one year later, thanks to the ASCE, that I was right and so I can I ask what what is taking so long?
You will understand that I am a professional engineer who has been needlessly deprived of income for most of the past nine years and that is a very rare occurrence - perhaps unique in the UK? It cannot be solved without your input and so please speak to Mr McAteer and he will explain to you the effects of prolonged unemployment on professional people who have no experience, or expectation of it ever happening to them.
I am copying this to Universal Credit. They have previously expressed surprise at the volume of correspondence and I have explained that when no-one responds, you must decide either to "give-up" or "keep going" and I decided to kept going.
I did not visit the school during or after Storm Babet, but I expect the land to still be flooded with both surface and ground water right up to the apron of the building; that will go-on and the damage will continue until the end of the week. The question for Buro Happold is: "How long can this go-on for before the building suffers a collapse?"
Finally, permit me to repeat this once again so that it sinks-in and is clearly understood by all: People like me have no concept of long-term unemployment; they have made little or no preparation for it because they have no expectation that it will affect them. It has not affected any of you, but it has affected me and that has to be corrected and re-balanced in whichever way is acceptable to me. Every aspect of this case is the responsibility the Scottish Government and the MSP's listed above. I have asked the engineers to do their job and I am now asking the MSP's to do your job.
I was expecting this to be resolved two-weeks ago and nothing has happened since then. No phone calls; no Emails. I have made many phone calls and issued many Emails as I always do, but no-one has contacted me. I do not know what the present hold-up is but can you find-out and let me know, please?
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteUndenoted are the minutes of the 17/8/16 meeting that I sent to Mr McAteer on Friday and I attach also the Scottish Government letters of 30/9/16 and 7/10/16. I have sent this information to all of you many times before of course.
What I am saying in the minutes is: "There is a problem with this school and you would be best checking it and fixing it now, because if you leave it too long you may not be able to fix it". What Mr Moore is saying in the letters is: "The Scottish Government has already checked it along with Buro Happold, the Contractor, the Council and Hub and it is fine. Stop annoying us with your Emails".
From yesterday's advice: "If any engineer has misled the public by leaving the impression that this building is safe, and it is not safe, then it is that engineer who may be held accountable for that in a Court". Mr Moore's letters leave that impression and I presume this is all you require just now?
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
If Mr McAteer has clarified the subject of "locus" with you, then you can proceed as described yesterday? I explained previously that I would like to meet with Mr McAteer and if we all accept that my situation should be solved separately, that meeting can be arranged, now.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteIt is my opinion, versus the opinion of Mr Moore of the Scottish Government. Only one of us is correct and only Buro Happold are authorised to adjudicate. That is clear (isn't it?) and that is all we are waiting for.
I look upon this as 9-years of my life, wasted. Police Scotland are organized and have done their job, but God knows what motivates the rest of you.
I am currently waiting on a call from Mr McAteer.
Dear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI made the report of "Reckless Certification" at Govan Police Station on 3/9/23 and they sent their their report to me 1-week later on 11/9/23, ref: PS-20230902-0558 . The action is with you to provide the additional information the Police require and I am conscious that we are now 6-weeks further down the line and nothing has been done? In the meantime of course, we have had Storm Babet .
The information you require is exactly the same as the information that Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie requires and it is obtained from Buro Happold. Can I suggest that you pass this on to Police Scotland and request they continue their investigations? As I have made clear, I intend leaving this investigation at the earliest opportunity and I would be content to pass it over entirely to Police Scotland.
I assume that you are both in agreement with that strategy?
Dear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteFollowing my Email yesterday, I understand there is due to be a further 4" of rainfall in Aberdeen between now and the weekend.
The Police Scotland Report of 11/9/23 mentioned yesterday, is trailing. The Officer in charge of the investigation reached a dead-end due to lack of information. Once he receives that information from Buro Happold, he can recommence and decide whether or not charges should be recommended against Scottish Building Standards for certifying the school as safe to use whilst in receipt of the opinions of ASCE experts who suggested the opposite. Was Mr Spence qualified to carry-out the investigation? Did he rely upon Visual Inspection Reports? Who did he consult with for advice? These matters are for Police Scotland.
I am handing this over to you and it is for your information and necessary action.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
I am still waiting on Mr McAteer to call? There is no reason why this should extend into another week as you have all of the information you require.
Dear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI am trying to have this case finalized to an outcome tomorrow (Friday) and I am copying this Email to Universal Credit to update them. They intervened to support me when I had virtually no savings left and their support has gone-on for much longer than should have been necessary. I have explained that I can only make progress when my MSP shows interest but, although I have tried to encourage that, that interest has never been there and it has taken many years longer than it should have to conclude because of that. Parliamentarians, in any country, are elected "to get the job done", but I have had to do this myself along with the ASCE, Protect and George Laird. That has taken years instead of weeks and it should not have been necessary.
Point 1 is the safety of the school and that has now been handed-over to yourselves and Police Scotland. All that I will add at this point is the attached "Site 85 - Summary", which you have seen before. There is a world of difference in honesty and professionalism between the Saudi Government and the Scottish Government and I have explained that already, but Proger SpA and Buro Happold are similar and ought to be managed the same way and the quality of information Proger SpA produced for the Saudi Government, should now be matched by the quality of information Buro Happold produce for the Scottish Government.
Point 2 is the payment of my financial losses and the provision of a replacement job. I attach Jonathan Moore's letters of 30/9/16 and 7/10/16. What I would draw your attention to are the last two paragraphs on page 2 of his letter of 30/9/16 regarding "blacklisting". I have scarcely worked since that letter was written and it is the responsibility of worldwide Governments to prevent the blacklisting of professionals from doing their job ethically and legally and the UK Government did that many years ago. When you don't do that and when you treat whistle-blowers with impudence, as the Scottish Government does, that sends out the wrong message and this example shows the tragic consequences that can follow. So, for that reason I look upon this as a failure of the Scottish Government to live up to UK and International standards.
I imagine there will be a public interest imperative in holding an Inquiry into the circumstances which have led to this outcome. I think everyone will agree, they are absolutely extraordinary and when the Government of Saudi Arabia can make the Scottish Government look this reckless, and when the ASCE can make Buro Happold, the ICE and the HSE look this reckless, and they can do so effortlessly, then confidence in Scotland's public bodies will suffer. What appears clear to me is that there are too many vested interests and there should be none of that.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
Kindly make sure that tomorrow's meeting is organized. That is all that I am asking you to do.
George - I see you received a citation alongside the ASCE and Protect. Not bad. I'll see if I can you paid for your work now.
ReplyDeleteAlways happy to be noticed
DeleteDear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI have just learned that a weather warning is in place from now until the end of next week for flooding in the Aberdeen area and so the situation should now be considered as critical?
I mentioned the Saudi Government's response to situations like this yesterday and they are officially categorized as "Top Urgent" and Ministers deal with them instantly and if a Saudi Minister perceives a danger to life from a potentially collapsing telecoms mast at the edge of the Arabian desert, then a Scottish Minister should perceive a danger to life from a potentially collapsing school in middle of Aberdeen?
If there is no risk, or if the risk is small, or if it exists but I have exaggerated it, or if it can and is being managed, then Buro Happold, the ICE and the HSE will explain all of that to you. That is their job.
The Police were put in charge of the situation in Saudi Arabia because it was potentially a criminal law matter. It might be a good idea to put the Police in charge at Brimmond?
Dear Mr Sarwar,
I am still waiting for Mr McAteer to call?
George - We'll leave it at that until I hear of an outcome. The position is that the 85 haven't missed a day's pay. You have put 6-years work into this and I have put 9-years work into it and neither of us have been paid. It's been a cover-up and some of the 85 will be worried that they may end-up in facing criminal charges.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteThe weather warning, for flooding, has been extended to cover all of next week and I presume that you are both aware of that? So, the situation which, in terms of the stability of the land and the building was critical last week, continues and I find that extraordinary.
Accountability for any resulting accidents will fall to the Scottish Government under the Education Scotland Act and by virtue of the checks carried-out by Scottish Building Standards and that was the basis of my complaint to Police Scotland.
If any kind of cover-up has been going-on, and the public have been kept in the dark, then the reaction to that will be entirely negative.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
I am still waiting for Mr McAteer to call. When you deal with constituency matters in an organized, communicative and collaborative way, and when you take advice from experts, then great disasters like this don't happen in the first place and so please arrange the meeting for tomorrow.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI presume the gravity of the current situation at Brimmond has now been explained to you and the others by Buro Happold? I explained it in 2014, before the school was built, and I would expect a Public Inquiry to follow this to establish why our Scottish Parliament and the contractors, consultants and lawyers they use have become this systemically dysfunctional.
I was advised earlier today that Mr McAteer is in Court for the next seven to ten days and so a meeting with Mr McAteer on Friday is sadly not possible. Can I suggest that I meet with Harper MacLeod on Friday instead? I understand that a number of their senior staff have been working on this case for many months for their client, the Scottish Government.
I am not asking you to attend the meeting but I am asking you to organize it for me - for Friday 3rd November. This should be a final outcome meeting and so Harper MacLeod will require authority from the Scottish Government to agree payments to myself and the others parties that are involved and a replacement job offer for myself.
Respond to me tomorrow (Thursday) with a time for the meeting, please.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteKindly get back to me with a time for tomorrow's meeting.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteIt's not an automated reply that I'm looking for and I require time to prepare too. Any attendee at a meeting usually has 48-hours to prepare and so I am asking all of you to waken-up and start doing the job you are paid to do.
I sent you a worked example of how a serious government deals with similar, but far smaller example than Brimmond School and it takes them hours, not months or years.
I am copying this to Universal Credit to make clear that I have requested this be ended tomorrow. So, as I said less than an hour ago, kindly get back to me with a time for the meeting.
George - My Email connection has been terminated again and that happens from time to time. I suspect it is entirely illegal and this case is getting more and more into the realms of possible criminality.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was going to ask all four MSP's to do today was communicate and ensure the following:
1) My meeting with Harper MacLeod takes place on Monday.
2) Buro Happold's design check has been handed-over to Police Scotland.
If item 2 still hasn't been done, and we have all been waiting on this since August, then I was going to suggest that Liam Kerr submits a complaint of professional misconduct against Buro Happold to the Institution of Civil Engineers and that he takes the story to the Press.
Dear Mr Kerr, Ms Dunbar, Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI heard nothing from either Mr Sarwar or Ms Baillie yesterday and that is disappointing.
The land surrounding the school will no doubt be flooded again this morning and the land will be sinking. I have explained what that means and there is no need for me to do so again. The decision to keep the school open is yours.
Can I ask all four of you to communicate, today, to ensure the following :
1) Harper MacLeod issue a "call to meeting" and an agenda to myself.
2) Buro Happold's "as-built" engineering design check is handed-over to Police Scotland.
If item 2 has still not been provided, then can I suggest that Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar consider the following:
1) Submit a report of Professional Misconduct, against Buro Happold, to the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE).
2) Submit a report on behalf of your constituents to the HSE.
3) Involve the Press.
We have already witnessed two storms in the short time since Police Scotland delivered their opinion and so if you continue to do nothing, then events at the school will inevitably overtake you.
Dear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI have recommended that a Public Inquiry should take place and I attach the recent Cole Inquiry of 2017, which was the Inquiry which followed the partial collapse of Oxgangs Primary in Edinburgh. The failure we have at Brimmond School is a "limit state failure", specifically a "hydraulic failure" and partial collapse will occur if you do not take very urgent action to stop it from happening.
I thought that by sending you a review of the Cole Inquiry Report, it may save time. I have tried this approach before and it was unsuccessful but with Police Scotland's involvement, the situation has changed and it would therefore be prudent for everyone to pay attention to what I say below.
Firstly, the latent defect affecting Oxgangs Primary was that the walls were proven by design to be unstable during high winds. The latent defect affecting Brimmond School is that the foundations are proven by design to be unstable, especially during and after heavy rain. The two defects are analogous and should be treated in the same way.
12.1.8 on page 213, explains that Edinburgh City Council set-up a "Corporate Incident Management Team" to investigate the failure at Oxgangs Primary and they met every day until the investigation was complete and a final recommendation could be made to the Council. The Council had previously been asked to approve the schools based upon Visual Inspection Reports provided by the PFI consortium, but they refused and elected to carry-out their own checks. That was the crucial decision that probably saved lives. It took Edinburgh City Council a number of days to reach that decision, it has so far taken the Scottish Government in excess of six-years and they are still refusing and and that reflects badly on everyone.
Aberdeen City Council's Head of Building Standards and Scotland's Head of Building Standards have each checked and certified Brimmond School. But have they done that "recklessly"? That is the matter that Police Scotland are investigating.
Brimmond School failed for the first time in November 2015. Has a "Corporate Incident Management Team" been set-up and are they meeting every day? Ms Baillie presents the allusion that if I send one Email per day that is somehow an excessive reaction to the situation. The chronology showing how quickly decisions were made by Edinburgh City Council is shown on page 59-63. These decisions require communication between all of the parties that are involved. No communication = no decision. One Email per day is nothing at-all and in my experience of serious engineering environments, I would expect to have to deal with very many Emails and so the statement that 1No per day is excessive is an allusion and a pretty unhelpful one at that.
The "Head in the Sand" attitude of the Scottish Government (SFT) is illustrated by 10.12.14 on page 189 and the futility of Visual Inspection Reports is explained in "Recommendation 5.6" on page 239. Has anyone asked SFT to explain why they have refused to allow a proper investigation to be carried-out? This statement by SFT pretty much guaranteed that, whatever Professor recommended in his report, it would be ignored and Oxgangs Primary Schools would keep-on happening, time after time, and I presume that is why no-one at the Scottish Government wants to confront why it has happened again so quickly?
The Scottish Government asked me, several times, to accept Visual Inspection Reports, but I refused and I have carried-out my own expert checks instead and it is fortunate that I had the resourcefulness to do that because no-one else was going to do it. Again, that has been the crucial decision that has probably saved lives. If you ignore me and the experts of the ASCE for long enough, a collapse will occur and that is the recognized sequence of the classic engineering disaster. (I have listed these disasters for you all so many times now, I do not have to do so again?)
ReplyDeleteThe recommendations of the Inquiry are listed on page 236 and are you possibly in breach of all of them just now? Recommendation 3, for example, "public bodies cannot delegate duties", means that Scottish Building Standards and all the rest of our public bodies have responsibilities which are not assignable to 3rd-parties carrying-out Visual Inspection Reports many years after the event and Police Scotland support that view.
The purpose of this Email is to make it very clear that the points that I have been making over the past nine-years have been made to you already, by your own Inquiry team. The Cole Inquiry is 270No pages long and so a lot of work goes into these investigations. That's the way it is in engineering and, for Brimmond School, I have been left to do it on my own without assistance from anyone. You do not have to be an engineer to understand the Cole Inquiry and the fact that the same thing has happened again, and so soon after its publication, is really disappointing.
Whether you will be able to fix Brimmond School as easily as the Edinburgh schools were fixed is of course the vexed question. All the advice that I have received, which I passed-on to you some time ago, suggests it will be much more difficult. So, unless Buro Happold disagree with that, that is the engineering prognosis. If those at Aberdeen City Council lack the engineering experience to decide upon what to do about that, then it falls to the Scottish Government to take advice from all of the parties that are involved and decide whether to keep the school open, or close it.
As I made clear on the trailing Emails, if you are not being taken seriously just now by the Scottish Government then the Press, Police Scotland, the ICE, the HSE and Buro Happold will assist you. I have given you the evidence you need, but the presentation of that evidence must be by those with the proper authority and that is yourselves and that means that responsibility to communicate with all of the parties that are involved now rests with you.
If you are interested in pursuing this with the Press then there are several possible approaches that would interest them, but that decision is for you.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
I am currently waiting to be called for a meeting with Harper MacLeod. I have attended many meetings in my life, probably hundreds, and they usually take a few days to organize? Why do two of Scotland's most senior MSP's find the matter of organizing a meeting so complex?
I have spent much of the past two days reviewing the Cole Inquiry Report for Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar. I have provided it before of course to Ms Baillie and it has been disregarded. Will it be disregarded this time? I don't think it will be and what does that tell you?
ReplyDeleteLet me reiterate: I require to be paid all of my losses and returned to employment. Jonathan Moore, John Swinney and Stephen Garvin of the Scottish Government are responsible for my losses and I have sent the evidence of that position to you many times and so the question of Scottish Government "locus" is answered.
I have had to explain this repeatedly whilst being unemployed and that is something that I find frustrating. I have been reporting this to Universal Credit since May, but I am corresponding with two MSP's that, for whatever reason, have elected to do the minimum which, in Mr Sarwar's case, is nothing.
I am expecting notification from Harper MacLeod of meeting in their Gordon Street office. This is a constituency matter which requires input from my constituency MSP, Ms Baillie. If she is refusing and Mr Sarwar is refusing, who will arrange this meeting for me? That is the only information I require from you. Respond to me by return Email, please.
file:///C:/Users/pc/Desktop/Inquiry_into_Edinburgh_Schools_February_2017%20(5).pdf
ReplyDeleteGeorge - Take a look at it when you have time. 10.12.14 on page 189 meant that although Professor Cole and his team of lawyers and structural engineers spent a year on this, it was never going to be implemented and that's why this has been covered-up for years. SFT and Scotgov will not admit their own guilt. This case is a train coming down the tracks towards them, isn't it? Is it criminality though? It's certainly possible, isn't it.
The link isn't working
DeleteDear Police Scotland,
ReplyDeleteI wish to report that the undernoted Email: "The Cole Inquiry and Scottish Futures Trust" was removed from my record of sent items about 1-hour ago.
The surreptitious removal of my record of correspondence on Brimmond School has been going-on since March and I have reported it several times to my MSP Ms Baillie and to Ms Raphael at Protect.
Obviously, the removal of records is the last thing that we need just now, but is it also a breach of Data Protection law?
It would appear to be sponsored by one of the parties copied-in to this Email and the only party that I would suspect of this kind of dishonesty is the Scottish Government and I say that because my experience of the others would not lead me to suspect any of them.
Can I leave the decision on what to do about this to Police Scotland? You are the experts on criminal law and I have no idea how you investigate these matters but if you require access to my account then, by copy of this Email, I confirm my agreement for that.
Dear Mr Kerr, Mr Sarwar, Ms Dunbar and Ms Baillie,
I think the rest of us have waited long enough and there may be a public expectation that, at this point, you all start doing your job?
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteProfessor Cole was assisted by structural and civil engineer Stewart Macartney and by senior lawyer Chris Phillips. This is explained in 2.1.2 on page 2 of the Cole Inquiry Report (attached again) and he needed that engineering and legal authority to support his recommendations.
I have been assisted by expert geotechnical engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and by whistle-blowing lawyers at Protect and I have asked that they are paid for their advice, just as Mr Macartney and Mr Phillips were paid for their advice, and I presume that is acceptable to the Scottish Government?
In light of the below Email to Police Scotland, the matter of the security of correspondence will be of concern to all. I elected to copy all correspondence to Mr George Laird some time ago anticipating that there would be some future attempt made to delete the record and, for that reason, I have asked for Mr Laird to be paid for his work also.
I expect my outcome to be resolved to an outcome by the end of this week and I also expect the ASCE, Protect and Mr Laird to be paid sums commensurate with the sums paid to Mr Macartney and Mr Phillips. I have requested that the sums paid to the ASCE, Protect and Mr Laird will come direct from Harper MacLeod and not via myself.
I am currently waiting for a "call to meeting" from Harper MacLeod and I am waiting for either of you, Mr Sarwar or Ms Baillie, to initiate that with your colleagues at the Scottish Government.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeletePlease ensure that the "call to meeting" is issued today.
After all of this time, I am only interested in getting paid, getting the others paid and getting back to work. I will therefore not be minuting the meeting and I will not be communicating with any of the rest of you after the meeting concludes.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI have still received no notification. Make sure the instruction has been issued to Harper MacLeod, please. I believe they are expecting the meeting.
I am copying this to Universal Credit who are aware that I have now spent nine-years, and my life savings, pursuing a whistle-blowing case. Sadly, it looks as though I have been proven correct and I think there should be a lesson in that for all copied into this Email?
I regret sending Emails every four or five hours, of course I do, but that is the only way it works and that is explained by Professor Cole in his Report.
Can one of you respond by return, please?
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI am still waiting?
If it is too late to fix the school, and presumably that's the problem, then we are now in a criminal law situation which is best handled by Mr Kerr, Ms Dunbar and Police Scotland from now-on.
As I'm sure everyone can see, this process has been needlessly drawn-out over the years and so please ensure that Harper MacLeod get-back to me today.
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/Data/City%20of%20Edinburgh%20Council/20170209/Agenda/report_of_the_independent_inquiry_into_the_construction_of_edinburgh_schools.pdf
ReplyDeleteGeorge - The above link appears to work OK.
ReplyDeleteThree things:
1) The key passage is 10.12.13 and 10.12.14 on page 189. It is only a few lines in length but it says to me that engineering in Scotland is now run by politicians as no engineer would say this.
2) Jackie Baillie has spun this out for seven and a half years on the basis that I am only allowed to send one Email per fortnight or per months and most of those she doesn't answer. According to Professor Cole, send as many Emails as you have to, one per hour if needs be.
3) You can see how tremendously detailed these investigations become. I have had to do all of that myself. No help has been offered by anyone - by the ICE, HSE, or by Buro Happold. Is my investigation with the ASCE any less rigorous that Professor Cole's investigation with Stewart Macartney?
Dear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteCan I suggest that you make contact with Professor Alan Dunlop? He appeared in the hour long BBC documentary "How Safe are our Schools" that examined the reasons for the Oxgangs Primary School collapse of January 2016. He has pretty strong views on the Cole Inquiry and the Scottish Government's response to the Cole Inquiry.
I have made many references to the "Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981" over the years, but I have had no engagement whatsoever from any of the parties copied into this Email and that continues to astound me. It is crediting with changing the face of worldwide engineering and yet no-one appears to have heard of it. Professor Dunlop is visiting Professor at Kansas State University in USA (the Hyatt Regency is located in the same city) and so if anyone can give you and the others a lesson on the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse and what we can learn from it, it is him.
Professor Dunlop's comments and opinions over the years lead me to believe that he will not be surprised by many aspects of this case. But, if you tell him that the Scottish Government were told by a qualified engineer that the school would sink, but they went ahead and built it anyway, then he will be surprised and may be pretty forthright about that.
It is important of course that any approach to Professor Dunlop is made using the correct protocol and so can I leave that to you?
Dear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteAll correspondence dating back to 2018, has been stored by Mr George Laird at the following site: The Laird Report In addition to all Emails I have sent, there are also "below the line" comments between myself and Mr Laird that may be informative just now.
I do not know Mr Laird and I have never spoken to him. The reason he elected to assist me was because he feels that he was the target of some fairly putrid legal advice in the past by Harper MacLeod's Professor Robert Rennie and I was subjected to the same treatment by Professor Rennie. Hence, that common experience explains the reason for Mr Laird's involvement.
With respect to Professor Dunlop, I would anticipate that if there is anyone able to cut through the vapour surrounding everyone's respective positions on this matter, it is Professor Dunlop and he may do that quickly for you?
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
I expect to be paid and working again within the next few days. The impression given just now is that you are defending Harper MacLeod and they are defending you and the way to dispel that impression is to schedule the meeting and let Harper MacLeod defend themselves.
George - I wrote to Jackie Baillie and asked: "Why are none of you paying attention to the expert opinions of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)". She replied on 8/1/18 saying: "I don’t think I am pretending that the information doesn’t exist, it is whether anyone will pay appropriate attention to it. I think you will concede that a number of my colleagues have brought this to the attention of Scottish Ministers, SFT and the local authority, without success".
ReplyDeleteThe authoritative figures here are "Scottish Ministers" and "SFT". She didn't confirmed that she had presented the information to them although I presumed that she had and they refused to take it seriously. Either way, accountability would appear to lie with them. I presume that Harper MacLeod have advised them that this fandango is in some way lawful?
George - The Deputy Chief Executive of Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) in 2016 was Peter Reekie and it was he that was speaking in page 189 f the Cole Inquiry Report. He is now Chief Executive. He's a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and that may explain why the Institution of Civil Engineers have been so reluctant to help me and I have had to go to the ASCE instead. So it is myself, versus Peter Reekie and John Swinney. If I win, and I think I have won, then the question might be: "Why has the whistle-blower been unemployed since 2016, while Peter Reekie has been protected by the ICE and promoted by the Scottish Government?"
ReplyDeleteKeep pushing facts
DeleteThe investigation is now with Mr Kerr, Ms Dunbar and Police Scotland; we're out. The facts were first presented to the Scottish Government in 2016 and so it's been a cover-up. Peter Reekie gets paid more in a fortnight than you and I live on for a year and so let him and the vested interests feel some pressure.
DeleteDear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteThose primarily responsible for this situation are John Swinney MSP and Peter Reekie of Scottish Futures Trust. It appears to me that the malfeasance has been widespread but, in these situations, it is those "in authority" that shoulder the responsibility and they are Mr Swinney and Mr Reekie as they are "the leaders".
I have posted-up the explanation for this conclusion on Mr Laird's website and my rationale for doing that is that I want to ensure that Mr Laird gets paid for his work. He could have given-up at any time during the past 6-years, but he persevered and so he should be paid for that.
From your perspective though, as constituency MSP's, all that anyone is waiting on, is the design check of the as-built design carried-out by Buro Happold. Once that information is received, it can be handed to Police Scotland so that they can conclude their investigation of "Reckless Certification".
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
I have still not received a "call to meeting" from Harper MacLeod. I doubt if the relationship the Scottish Government has with this company is based upon the concept of "protecting the public", as they appear to do whatever they like.
If malfeasance between the Scottish Government and Scottish Futures Trust is to be investigated, then Harper MacLeod will inevitably be investigated too and not before time. I have suggested meeting Mr McAteer, instead of Harper MacLeod and that would be my clear preference. Can you consult with your colleagues and ask them to instruct Mr McAteer, please?
"Just ignore this and it will go away" - hasn't worked for any of you in the past and most engineers know it is a strategy that is doomed for failure. The ASCE and myself have given everyone a lesson in engineering, including the ICE, but it is over now and I want to be paid and returned to work. How many times do I have to repeat this?
George - I went to see Police Scotland on 3/9/23 and they responded to me on 11/9/23. Their response recommended that an authoritative check on the as-built design of the school be carried-out. As I say above, that is what we are all waiting on.
ReplyDeleteI haven't posted Police Scotland's response up here, but all of the others have it.
Liam Kerr MSP and Jackie Dunbar MSP have presumably asked Buro Happold to provide this? I say that because 2-months is an incredibly long time for everyone to be kept waiting and we have had two storms, which have each affected the school, in that time.
I have suggested the options of going to the Press and going to Professor Dunlop, but the easiest way by far is just to ask and, if they do that, Buro Happold have to hand it over and they have to do that instantly.
Then, once that is done, and assuming Buro Happold agree with the guidance provided by the ASCE, Police Scotland are then able to, number-one, re-open their criminal investigation into Scottish Building Standards and, number two, they (may) start a much wider malfeasance investigation, but that is for them.
One interesting side issue here is the involvement of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). Peter Reekie is an FICE and Jonathan Moore an MICE. It is not my job, or yours, to examine the professional conduct of members of the ICE with respect to the Ethical Code. It is the ICE's job to do that.
Part of the ICE's remit, and this goes back to when they were formed, is to allow engineers to express themselves and do their job free from the strictures of political interference and they do not appear to be doing that any longer. So, is that being left to the engineers themselves and to bloggers like you?
George - I have referred to a few sections of the Cole Inquiry Report, but the easiest way to get an overview of it is the read the "Executive Summary" section 3.8, which is on pages 20-23. It's easy to follow and non-engineers can understand pretty much all of it.
ReplyDeleteThe bold text recommends that "Visual Inspection Reports" should not be relied upon to assess the safety of a building. Yet, that is all that the Scottish Government has relied upon for the past seven and a half years. If you then go-on to read Peter Reekie's opinion on page 189, and consider it in the context of the "Executive Summary", which is Professor Cole's view, that is the locus of the problem for me.
Should we not be expecting our MSP's to be aware that their constituents are saying to them: "There's something definitely wrong here, you'd better get this checked?" Jackie Baillie defers to Peter Reekie, but do they all defer to Peter Reekie? Should they not defer to Professor Cole?
Those that share responsibility for this, for me anyway, are those who knew about it and decided to do nothing. That investigation will start with Scottish Building Standards and might well move-on to Scottish Futures Trust and the Scottish Government. You've got to say too that compared to the ASCE, the ICE have been extraordinarily disappointing.
If we have another Inquiry, will that Inquiry be to determine why a whistle-blower and a blogger have had to investigate this? What if the whistle-blower and the blogger hadn't done that? When did the others know and, in the context of the Cole Inquiry recommendations, what did they do to investigate? Did they all defer to Peter Reekie? Even the ICE?
Dear Mr Kerr, Ms Dunbar, Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI am aware that Mr Laird has been asked to do a great deal of work over the past 6-years, but we both need help to push this over the line and so I contacted Wings over Scotland yesterday. I was communicating with someone who was writing under a pseudonym but who knew the detail of this case; detail of which only the Scottish Government is aware, specifically the attendees of the meeting of 17/8/16. That is something that I found quite unprofessional and I assume that you would agree with me on that.
I am telling you this to make you all aware of the dynamic that is ongoing just now, the respondent was repeatedly demanding the ASCE opinions of November 2017 be withdrawn and he was threatening legal action against the ASCE if they weren't withdrawn. Frankly, the prospect of anyone proposing legal action, especially against the ASCE, is something that sounds rather desperate and unseemly to me. Certainly, in the context of how other Governments behave, I think that everyone ought to calm right down and communicate, without resorting to legal threats?
Two important issues were settled during that dialogue. The first is that the evidence that concerns the Scottish Government most is the compilation of opinions from ASCE experts. Secondly, I asked several times for the missing piece of evidence that will settle this case once and for all and that is the "as-built design review by Buro Happold". Once we receive that, and it is passed over to Police Scotland, this case is over for all of us? Is someone, Ms Winfield perhaps, able to explain why this is taking so long? Police Scotland asked for this on 11/9/23.
Finally, I would like to meet Mr McAteer on Friday to settle this case on my behalf. I am satisfied that he is not affected by the vested interests that have affected (some of) the rest of you for so long. I wish to be paid and returned to work, as I keep repeatedly saying to all of you. I have great respect for Police Scotland and this case has only started moving since they became involved and so the wheels of justice might turn slowly, but Police Scotland works. I agree to provide any information Police Scotland require in future, but I want this case to be ended, from my perspective, on Friday.
George - I'll let you know where to find the exchange on Wings over Scotland; Go to "At the Seven-Eleven" The pseudonyms are "Captain Yossarian" for me and "stuart mctavish" for the Scotgov guy. The Scotgov guy is either Bill Dodds who retired a fortnight after ASCE opinions were issued, or Jonathan Moore. From the syntax, it is Jonathan Moore but I may be wrong. Whoever it is is an arse though. I think we can agree on that?
ReplyDeleteGeorge - Does this mean that they have to pay two bloggers for their work? I think it does.
ReplyDeleteYour Visual Inspection Reports on the other hand were by unknown local, ie Aberdeen, engineers (their names were redacted). As Professor Cole said to you in the Executive Summary section of the Cole Inquiry Report, these cannot be relied upon and so they should NOT be being used. It was Visual Inspection Reports that caused the closure of 17No schools in Edinburgh in 2016. Even so, you are still using them. Even when you have been told that the ones you are using are completely wrong, you still continue to rely on them? Do you not think that it perhaps might be your engineers that come under legal threat, or Police investigation?
ReplyDeleteThe Police will investigate those who are wrong and that appears to be yourself, Scottish Building Standards, Scottish Futures Trust and perhaps Scottish Ministers. Whether that involves criminality is for them to decide. They will not investigate the ASCE, because they are right – All of them are right. It’s just as well I asked the ASCE isn’t it? If we had all listened to your team, and I had done nothing, then the school would inevitably have “deformed” and if it deformed when people were in the building, then these people may be killed or injured.
Anyway, enough of that. I don’t know about anyone else, but I have had enough of playing these nursery school games with you. The ASCE provided their guidance free of charge as that is the ethos of that professional institution. You and your team have been paid and what you are contractually required to do (and I asked you to do this a few hours ago) is obtain, from the contracted design engineer, a signed, stamped and verified DESIGN REVIEW of the as-built foundation design, including the deep excavation.
Finally, ASCE Ethics Case Study 4 looks at the way law regards those who give the impression that a building is safe when it is not safe, and it collapses as a result of that, and the law treats them pretty harshly. The ASCE are not in that position just now, but you are. So, your engineering advice is proven to be utter garbage and I suspect your legal advice is utter garbage too.
The Scottish Government might indeed not be facing multi-million pound claims due to your negligence on 17/8/16, but I think they probably will be. What a putrid affair this has been.
Dear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeletePermit me to clarify a couple of points for you:
1. The "Design Certificate" for Brimmond School was issued by Buro Happold and so the "as-built design review" should be Buro Happold. Police Scotland asked for an "independent review" of the design and that means a review by an independent team, that were not involved in the original design, but that team must be from within Buro Happold and this is in compliance with the Scottish Building Standards rules. As I said on Monday, it is most disappointing that we are all still waiting for this.
2. I attach "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion". This is the information that appears to be causing the current controversy. Rather needless controversy it has to be said as this information was issued to all of you a long time ago. You may contact any of these engineers, today if you wish, via the information embedded within the ASCE/Linkedin format and that's the way it works. Presumably the ICE has accepted the veracity of this information and if they accept it, the rest of you will accept it too?
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
Remember please that I am asking you to arrange a meeting between myself and Mr McAteer on Friday that gets me, and the others, paid and gets me back to work.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that I must insist that Friday's meeting with Mr McAteer is called. The purpose of a constituency MSP is to ensure that constituents do not suffer this extraordinary and needless level of attrition to their, and their family's, quality of life. I cannot say that you have ever responded with any enthusiasm on this matter and I do not understand the reason for that, but I have asked you to organize a final closing meeting and, once you have done that, you may leave everything to Mr McAteer.
The Scottish Government is responsible for paying my losses. The evidence is that the Scottish Government's Mr Moore and Mr Dodds were asked at the 17/8/16 meeting to get the design-change properly checked because the land surrounding the building was sinking and flooding. Mr Moore responded to me on 30/9/16 and 7/10/16 to say that he had done that, with Buro Happold, and that the design-change had been checked and was satisfactory. At that point, he transferred liability to the Scottish Government. This is not the first time this has happened in recent years; it happened also at Edinburgh Sick Kids Hospital when it was first opened and so these expensive crises appear to be a systemic problem within the Scottish Government's public procurement nowadays.
Furthermore, there was never any responsibility on myself to investigate this case; that responsibility lies with the Scottish Government ministers as explained in the first few lines of the Education Scotland Act. I investigated simply because Jonathan Moore was being dishonest and that would go-on to allow a needless collapse to occur. Ministers John Swinney, Shirley Ann Somerville and Shona Robison, in continually directing me to resolve this with Aberdeen City Council whilst, at the same time, Fraser Innes of Hub directed the Council not to engage with me, only prolongated my losses. For Ministers, it was shameful behaviour and we are fortunate that it has not already resulted in a really tragic outcome.
All 6No letters you require in order to understand this position are attached and the minutes of the 17/8/16 meeting are trailing on the Email of 23/10/23.
This Email is addressed to Mr Sarwar and to Ms Baillie, but this case should gravely concern all of you. When a member of the public has to approach the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in order to get expert advice on engineering, the ethics of the professional engineer, safety and law, because he is refused that advice here, then that is something that will be of the most profound public concern.
I am expecting the closing meeting to take place on Friday. I think I have repeated the above information often enough and If you revert back to the "Site 85" example from KSA that I sent to all of you, I didn't have to repeat anything for them. They listened, followed the route-map and it was effortlessly completed with all remedial work finished in about 5% of the time it has taken you.
George - You have seen the following before. Professor Rennie is saying: "You will not get access to law. I am stopping you and I will make sure the law doesn't help you". I recall you received the same treatment from him some years ago. This time though you have the ASCE on your side and you don't get any better than that.
ReplyDeleteSadly, this is the version of law that is (very well) paid for and preferred by the Scottish Government. So, public money gets paid to maintain cover-ups. Safety doesn't come into it. I believe that we are close to the end now. Buro Happold will not be sucked into this vortex and so it is for the rest of them to sort-out some grubby deal.
As long as we get paid and out on Friday. Leave the rest to them:
"I am not responding to anymore of your emails. Do not send any more. I dealt with your groundless complaint years ago."
Professor Robert Rennie
Consultant
George - They have been covering each other's back for so long that the truth will only come-out an a Public Inquiry. Cover-ups tend to provoke an entirely negative public response, especially so when safety is involved.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - I recommended above, a week or so ago, that Liam Kerr and Jackie Dunbar progress this from here with Professor Alan Dunlop who not only understands this subject, but he understands the Hyatt Regency Collapse of 1981, which is the precedent case. His thought patterns follow those of the ASCE. He does things properly in other words. None of this "now you see it now you don't stuff". Have they contacted him yet?
ReplyDeleteI cannot post anything up here, (it might get us all into a hell of a lot of trouble if I did) but I sent the MSP's a worked example from KSA, from 2017, which I was involved in. All the evidence I presented was genuine, officially stamped, letter headed, signed and so-on. The Minister in charge, who was "His Excellency Minister for Public Safety", used to respond on the same day. In Scotland, we communicate using George Laird and Stuart Campbell's websites!
4No MSP's, 3No Ministers and yet we communicate via bloggers!
All this talk of Professors - Professor Rennie and his team of lawyers have kept the ball in the Holyrood long grass for a long time, haven't they. Professor Dunlop will, I think, explain this them (and I'm assuming that to be Liam Kerr and Jackie Dunbar) within days. The first Professor that was suggested was suggested, by me, back in the meeting of 17/8/16. I posted the minutes up a while back and it is explained in minute 17. That was Professor Albert Roger and that's the chap that taught me this subject thirty-odd years ago. Confined artesian conditions, soil collapse, expansive clays and all the rest of it. Professor Dunlop is architecture and Professor Roger is engineering. It looks as though they have gone with Dunlop, but Roger is a top academic engineer and a Member of the Royal Society and so if they want to put the tin-lid in this, so to speak, they can ask him as well. Either is preferable to Rennie's team.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteI presume that Professor Dunlop has been consulted? If I can refer you back to the Scottish Government meeting of 17/8/16 (the minutes are trailing), specifically minute 17 where it was suggested that Professor Albert Roger, who is now retired but was formerly Professor of Geotechnical Engineering at Aberdeen University, be consulted?
Mr Moore and Mr Dodds elected not to consult him at the time and consulted with Buro Happold instead. Buro Happold told them that the building was safe, but they do not appear to be saying that now and that ought to be clarified urgently. Professor Dunlop is a Professor of Architecture and so he will not be able to help you with that, but Professor Roger will.
He can provide a review on the as-built design and whether I, and the ASCE experts, are right or wrong. Professor Dunlop will be able to cover the contractual issues with you and explain why the present stasis exists. Both are amongst the most distinguished academics in the country and so my expectation is that no-one will argue with their conclusion and if they say the school could subside, no-one will argue with that.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
I asked you both to ensure that this case is brought to a close tomorrow (Friday) and so please do that. I appear to have had to do absolutely everything, haven't I?
George - Minute 17 - "GMcA suggested Professor Albert Rodger from Aberdeen University would be able to provide an independent and expert opinion. SD stated that he was one of the foremost geotechnical engineers in the country and his specialism was geotechnical dynamics, which was the specific problem at Brimmond. JM stated that Ramsay and Chalmers of Aberdeen had already provided an independent opinion and found no sign of subsidence either within the school buildings or within the playgrounds."
ReplyDeleteYou need two Professors and Dunlop and Roger will I expect be very difficult to beat, maybe impossible to beat. I expect both will review "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion" and they will ask: "Why has nothing been done about this?" I'll leave the Press to others. The investigation has been done and it's a matter of asking Stephen Garvin, Jonathan Moore, Peter Reekie, Swinney, Robison, and Somerville for their comment? It's been a cover-up, hasn't it.
Dear Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar,
ReplyDeleteFurther to my Email yesterday on the subject of Professors Dunlop and Roger, I attach the following information which ought to be presented to them so that they are able to provide recommendations:
1. Soil Investigation Report for Brimmond School by Fairhurst
2. Aberdeen School Project Comments and Opinions by expert members of the ASCE
3. Letter from Buro Happold's geotechnical expert
4. Visual Inspection Reports by Ramsay and Chalmers, Cundall and Fairhurst
5. Letter by John Swinney
6. Minutes of Scottish Government Meetings 1 and 2
7. Slideshow presented to Scottish Government on 17/8/16
All I would add is to say that the statement that Buro Happold were not aware of any design changes is untrue and they have been warned of these changes, and the effect they were having on the performance of the building and the land, many times since 2018 and I presume you are both aware of that.
Police Scotland's recommendation that an independent design review be carried-out would be met by that of an independent design team within Buro Happold, as I said yesterday, but if, for whatever reason, they are refusing, then a design review by Professors Roger and Dunlop would be an acceptable alternative for Police Scotland?
The worldwide strategy for dealing with delinquent contractors, design teams and lawyers is not to wait on them, the strategy is to take advice from the best academic experts you can find and Professors Roger and Dunlop are exceptional in that regard and any future Public Inquiry would, I think, appreciate that pragmatic choices, that work, ought to be made at the stage we are at now and that was certainly the case at the Cole Inquiry where the entire team of advisors that had been relying on Visual Inspection Reports were replaced and the source of the problem was found within days of that. Are we in the same situation again? It looks like it to me.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
Can you explain why I am still waiting on the meeting being organized?
Item 7 (slideshow) was presented at the Scottish Government at Meeting 1 on 17/8/16 and it wasn't taken seriously. If Professors Dunlop and Roger agree that this was a timely forewarning from a competent engineer of what was inevitably going to happen, and I think they most probably will do that, then I expect to receive reparations from the Scottish Government, from that date.
As I made clear yesterday, I want this resolved immediately.
Judging by the Michael Matheson story, I am surprised to find that anyone at Holyrood is hamstrung by insufficient data capacity but it seems that you are.
ReplyDeleteAll of the others received this OK, but I will split-up the attachments and send 1,2 and 3 with this Email and 4, 5, 6 and 7 I will send to you in a second Email.
It might be a good idea for all of you to do something about this? Today.
George - I'll wait and see what I get back from Jackie Baillie today or over the weekend re the meeting. If I get nothing back, then I'll send them Jackie Baillie's letter to Jenny Laing of Aberdeen City Council, which is JB 15209 and it was sent on 2/8/18. Jenny Laing's reply was received 6-months later on 25/1/19 and was described by a senior lawyer at the time as 'pretty disgraceful'.
ReplyDeleteThese letters are the locus of the cover-up. However, if they understand the 'lack of stability' problem first of all, then they will be able to work-out a way of fixing it and the information above allows them to do that and that is the strategy. The Jackie Baillie/Jenny Laing letters are just I suspect grounded in Party politics which is of no interest to me.
keep pushing mate
DeleteThe key piece of information is the slideshow. It was presented to them in front of an Advocate and the meeting was minuted. I found it just a couple of days ago. I presented the slideshow and explained: "It was a mistake...this is what's wrong...if you don't fix it, this is what's going to happen". Was I right... and did I get everything right?
DeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteI don't know what anyone else's strategy is, because no-one communicates. However, I will tell you what my strategy is from here:
The undernoted information is sufficient for Professors Dunlop and Roger. The other authoritative parties that are involved, principally Scottish Futures Trust, Scottish Building Standards, Scottish Government Ministers and Aberdeen City Council can submit their information today and the process of carrying-out the as-built design review can start from early next week, if the Professors agree to do that. Once the problem is understood, the solution can be found and that is the strategy that underpins engineering.
I have repeatedly asked for a closing meeting to be organized that will allow me to end my involvement and that request has been ignored. It has been ignored not for days or weeks, but for months. I will therefore proceed as follows from here:
This problem has been caused in the first instance by a site mistake and no-one disputes that. Why has it lasted, unresolved, for more than 9-years though when similar cases, worldwide, are resolved in 1-8 weeks? That is the question that the public will want answered. Why can the government of KSA, for example, get this right and the Scottish Government cannot? There is a reason for that and that is what I will start working on over the weekend.
I will send a compilation of that information to you all on Monday.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteI promised on Friday to set-out where responsibility for the failure of this whistleblowing case lies. I was time-barred years ago but I elected to continue as I was certain that the defect that I was reporting would go-on to manifest, sooner or later, in a collapse. This will be a fairly long explanation, to ensure all the bases are covered. I will essentially be summarizing more than 9-years of work and around 1500No previous Emails. The idea is that this single Email will give everyone an equal overview of the case and the reasons it failed. This may be a worldwide exemplar case where a Government's refusal to communicate and refusal to allow others to communicate (Government secrecy in other words) has led to a needless construction failure and, with that secrecy in mind, I am not expecting to be inundated with questions from anyone but if additional information is required, and it probably will be, then ask and I will provide it.
The current position is that the whistleblowing case has been abandoned and a criminal investigation by Police Scotland is underway. They recommended that an "as-built design review" be carried-out on Brimmond School and they recommended that on 11/9/23. That should have been carried-out already by a team of Buro Happold engineers and I suspect it will show that the school requires either urgent large scale remedial works, or that the progressive year on year degradation of the land is such that the school cannot be stabilized. It will be either one, or the other.
That is the present position. Whether the school is sufficiently stable to remain in use during the rest of the winter is of course the vexed question that I have asked many times and I presume that Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar are currently seeking that reassurance from Buro Happold?
Let me make one point before I start: When an engineer notices that a mistake has been made that will impact public safety in the future if it is not rectified, then he has a legal and an ethical duty as an engineer to make what is called a "protected disclosure". This position is understood and supported throughout the world and it has been part and parcel of engineering for decades. Nevertheless, I have had extraordinary difficulty getting that concept understood over the years, even by the Institution of Civil Engineers and I was not expecting that.
Harper MacLeod are the law-firm the Scottish Government uses to provide them with legal advice and this has been a long-standing arrangement which has been in place for many years. Harper MacLeod also provide legal advice to many of Scotland's Councils, including Aberdeen City Council and so they should be a good place to go with a whistleblowing complaint involving a mistake made during the construction of a new school in Aberdeen? Go to Harper MacLeod, explain that your are a whistleblower, explain that a mistake has been made and that it ought to be checked and fixed straight away, or the building will inevitably start to sink?
The trailing Email from 13/9/14 shows that I did that. What did Harper MacLeod do? They asked the Contractor, Ogilvie Construction: "Is this chap serious" and Ogilvie Construction replied: "No, he's not serious, he's a liar". That was it, the investigation was over, it was finished before it had even begun. I don't know what Harper MacLeod expected Ogilvie Construction to say? Did they expect them to say: "Yes, this chap is correct but we are going ahead to build the school anyway."
ReplyDeleteWhistleblowing reports were made not only to Harper MacLeod, but to the Council and to Hub but crucially nothing was done, no checks were carried out and construction continued right up until completion in late 2015. Ever since then, the land has been flooding and sinking, as I said it would.
I am a degree-qualified civil-engineer and another 40No degree-qualified independent experts checked it in 2017 and we all found it to be non-compliant which means that it is unsafe and that it could deform at any time. The Scottish Government has been asked to check it many times since 2014 and they refuse. You all know this of course and that is why Police Scotland are now involved.
If I hadn't shown sufficient determination to stay the course and if I hadn't been assisted by so many worldwide engineers, the deception would have continued until the building collapsed. How can something this malfeasant be allowed to happen in the UK? In the 25-years or so since the creation of the Scottish Government, it has all descended to this?
The original "crime" was a construction mistake and a fairly unremarkable one at that, but once that mistake is covered-up, it is the cover-up that is set into the public consciousness as the real crime and that is principally due to the Watergate case. Some will see this case as having nothing to do with Watergate and would find the analogy preposterous, but not everyone and it would be prudent for you all to have a think about that, as I have done.
Since 2014, I have personally accrued a total of almost £50,000 in legal costs to bring a public interest whistleblowing case. If nothing else, this demonstrates that whatever else happens to our lives, Harper MacLeod will always get paid. What more can I say? If you think "Watergate" is preposterous, charging £50,000 to do nothing seems fairly preposterous too.
Specifically, I have looked at the involvement of the following:
1. The Scottish Government (Parliamentarians, Scottish Building Standards, Scottish Futures Trust and Hub)
2. Harper MacLeod
3. The Institution of Civil Engineers
4. Buro Happold
I am aware that Ms Baillie has over the years been perhaps excessively deferential to these various groups and that has led to real loss of impetus in the investigation. If however we have found ourselves in the position whereby a member of the public (myself) has given each of these groups a lesson primarily in professional ethics, but also in engineering and law, then shouldn't the public be angered by that, perhaps to the point where a Public Inquiry is necessary? Most of you are Parliamentarians and so that decision is for you, but we may be in a situation where the truth will only be properly aired at a Public Inquiry. In the short term though, it would be prudent to start managing the bodies listed above a lot more forcefully over the course of the next few week or months than has been the case until now. A complete re-set from "deferential" to "demanding". I have been in similar situations before and that's the only way it works. Police Scotland's investigation will help, but they are investigating potential criminality involving the issuance of reckless safety and design certification. Their job is not to prevent the school from deforming or collapsing at some point in the future. That is your job and what I am saying is that if you continue to defer, everyone will continue to do nothing. Is public safety put at risk when they do nothing? Clearly it is and the way that situation is controlled is that Parliamentarians set time deadlines for all others to follow.
ReplyDeleteAnd I attach the following information with this Email:
1. Letter from Jackie Baillie to Jenny Laing, 2/8/18
2. Letter from Jenny Laing to Jackie Baillie, 25/1/19
3. Responses from Aberdeen City Council, 8/4/22 and 25/7/23
4. Advice to Whistleblowers from Institution of Structural Engineers
5. Letters from John Swinney, Shirley-Anne Somerville and Shona Robison
6. Letter by Hugh Mallet
7. Email to Harper MacLeod 13/9/14 (trailing)
8. Email from Harper MacLeod 18/5/15 (trailing)
Let me repeat (yet again) that I had this matter properly checked by many experts in November 2017 and their advice, although not conclusive, was extraordinarily consistent and therefore convincing. Two or three expert opinions from engineers of this calibre is usually considered enough, but I was given many more than that. As I understand it, you have 1No expert opinion, from Hugh Mallet of Buro Happold and he has said: "I know nothing". I am not aware of him saying anything more than that over the years and so the balance of expert opinion is more than 40 to zero in my favour. One would therefore expect the matter to have been settled long ago, but that hasn't happened. Instead, it has been dormant for years. Nothing happens because Hugh Mallet refuses to engage, but the refusal to engage doesn't absolve anyone of accountability in the end.
There have been two major problems:
1. Vested interests
2. Engineering disputes are normally adjudicated by a team of experts and that usually takes a period of weeks. In Scotland, they are adjudicated, very quickly, by John Swinney, Shirley-Anne Somerville or Shona Robison. The present Education Minister is somehow not involved.
This is damaging to the credibility of the engineering industry and my suggested solution was to consult with Professors Dunlop and Roger to advise you where you are going wrong. Professor Cole did that in 2017 and hardly anyone paid attention to his recommendations and so we've had yet another construction failure, Brimmond School, as a result and so let's try again, with two Professors this time. Would that work?
I want to say as little as possible about the ICE's role in this but, in comparison with the role played by the ASCE, they have been a disappointment. Most disappointing is that at least three of the main protagonists, Jonathan Moore, Bill Dodds and Peter Reekie are members of the ICE. Engineers in the USA and worldwide can look to the ASCE to protect them from the machinations of politics in whichever country they are working in and the system they have for doing that has worked reliably for decades, but in Scotland the ICE seem to be embedded in politics, just as Harper MacLeod are, and both appear reluctant to provide advice that would cut across what the Scottish Government expects them to deliver. Are they for "Visual Inspection Reports" or against them? (and this is just one example). Professor Cole is against them and the Scottish Government seems to be for them and so the ICE is neither for, or against. The result of that position is of course that we get a proliferation of Visual Inspection Reports because everyone knows that the ICE will say or do nothing to stop them and that is precisely what has happened.
ReplyDeleteI have mentioned the meeting of 17/8/16 many, many times. Mr Moore and Mr Dodds represented the Scottish Government and both claimed authority by being members of the ICE at the start of the meeting. Subsequent opinion from a range of experts has proven Mr Moore and Mr Dodds to have been dishonest and factually wrong throughout the course of that meeting. Yet, it appears impossible to have their conduct investigated. The Scottish Government refuse and the ICE won't investigate because their members are employed by the Scottish Government and so here we see the ethical values of that Institution, which seem to be more pragmatic than they should be and less effective as a result. The meeting was witnessed by a criminal law Advocate and the minutes of that meeting are the record of what was said by whom at the time. Whether or not it represents criminality is for Police Scotland to decide, but my impression of the meeting was that both gentlemen had let down their profession really badly.
People say: "If the ICE are against you, you will never win". Historically, there is no doubt some basis for that, but this case is different and expert members of the ASCE are all in agreement with me and that is the most remarkable dichotomy of engineering opinion I have ever come across in my life. I do not know of any engineer who has come across this before either. One of the professional institutions has clearly got it wrong and I suspect it is the ICE and, if so, then that is more than just disappointing. Think of the circumstances that exist today and how different they would have turned-out if the ICE had done their job when asked.
Just as the ICE are embedded within the Scottish Government, Harper MacLeod are embedded too and I found that if whistleblowing law is ignored by them, then it is ignored by everyone and that too is demonstrated here. Fortunately the situation for Brimmond has changed and it is not whistleblowing law but criminal law that I, and therefore the public, are now relying upon and criminal law and Police Scotland have always been independent and they aren't embedded within the Scottish Government in the way the ICE and Harper MacLeod are.
The crime that is being investigated is that of "Reckless Certification". Under the Education Scotland Act, the party with over-arching responsibility for the safety of the school is not the Council, it is Scottish Government Ministers. Therefore, who is to be investigated for Reckless Certification? That decision is for Police Scotland of course, but perhaps it will not be confined only to the Council.
If we revert back to the "slideshow" that was presented to all of you for the first time on Friday. Exactly the same explanation, photographs, information and soil data was given to expert members of the ASCE and they all agreed, instantly, that it amounted to an urgent problem. That meeting was with the Scottish Government, the Council weren't in attendance. How can the Scottish Government's and Buro Happold's response be so dramatically different from the ASCE's response? That tells me that the Scottish Government and Buro Happold have probably got this wrong. Getting it wrong is one thing, but getting it wrong every year for 9-years?
ReplyDeleteAnother contributory factor has been my constituency MSP, Jackie Baillie. When she wrote to the Deputy Leader of Aberdeen City Council on 2/8/18 with a list of six specific concerns that had been expressed by myself and had been supported by many others, the Deputy Leader of the Council responded, 6-months later, with a letter that failed to answer a single one of them and when the constituency MSP for Brimmond School, Jackie Dunbar tried again, 5-years later, asking exactly the same list of questions that Jackie Baillie had asked, she was met with the same blank response from the Council Deputy Leader. Both MSP's were essentially brushed-off by the Deputy Leader of the Council and so who is the authority here? I am addressing this mainly to Parliamentarians but what chance does any member of the public have when this is the support (or lack of support) afforded by MSP's? Where have the expert checks and balances gone?
If this case is investigated at a Public Inquiry, the questions the investigating authority will ask are: "When were you first made aware of this, who made you aware, what evidence was provided and what did you do to investigate?" and it seems to me firstly that everyone, but especially Buro Happold, will have difficulty when faced with that type of questioning and secondly, am I really the only person that has complained that the land around this school is sinking and flooding each winter? Ms Baillie and Aberdeen City Council have always presented the allusion that I am the only person that has made any kind of report, but is that true? Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar will know the answer to that.
Worldwide guidance for whistleblowers, provided by the Institution of Structural Engineers is attached. I have been following this for years and it doesn't work here. The reasons for that are set-out above and it is primarily the fault of Government and that sets the seeds for delinquent Councils, civil-servants, engineers, lawyers and all else that goes with it. I cannot contemplate a Government that exists to do things for poorer public outcomes than used to be the case before that Government came into existence. You can understand that sentiment? When members of the public have to rely upon Police Scotland because Parliamentarians do the minimum, and the ICE and Harper MacLeod do nothing, then Councils don't get managed properly, contractors don't get managed properly, consultants don't get managed properly and, all of a sudden, we have a new problem that has never been in existence before in Scotland.
As explained on Friday, the minutes of the meeting of 17/8/16, the "slideshow" reviewed at the meeting and Mr McAteer's witnessing of the meeting are my justification that the Scottish Government, via Mr Moore, Mr Dodds and Mr Swinney, are liable for my losses. This is not a complex argument, or one which is open to counter-argument as the evidence is conclusive and was presented to you all on Friday? One point that I have made, and Bob Matheson from Protect has made this point also, is that all are fortunate that I have remained, unpaid, to investigate this case properly for you. If I hadn't done that, then none of the rest of you would have done it and that would inevitably have led to a "deformed" or perhaps a collapsed school building; that point is being ignored for now, but it will not be lost at a Public Inquiry and it would not have been lost at Professor Cole's Inquiry, would it?
ReplyDeleteIf you revert back to the example from KSA that I have presented several times now; that shows the way whistleblowing ought to work. KSA don't even have whistleblowing laws and yet they are still about forty or fifty years ahead of Scotland in terms of handling these cases professionally and that is something that I think the public would find hard to accept. In KSA they listen to the ASCE, whereas in Scotland you listen to the ICE, who listen to you and each defends the other and nothing ever gets done. Do they allow Parliamentarians in KSA to adjudicate on complex engineering matters? No, they don't. It's the equivalent of putting nursery school kids in charge of an operating theatre at the local hospital and the difference between the Saudi Government and the Scottish Government is as stark as that sadly. Whistleblowing law exists here but, as I have explained above, it is not taken seriously, professional opinion is not taken seriously, no-one is willing to discuss these crucial matters and so any initiative like this one is always going to fail. Whether it failed due to Harper MacLeod, the ICE, Buro Happold, the Scottish Government, or some combination of all of them, the result is fairly plain to see. It has definitely failed. If even one of these parties had done their job, this situation would have been identified and fixed years ago.
As far as liabilities are concerned, as I said last week, Jonathan Moore's letters to me transfer all liabilities to the Scottish Government. These are liabilities principally for cost and safety and that has been my understanding for many years now. My advice to all of you would be to give Buro Happold and Harper MacLeod a limited time to produce the design review and an explanation of who is responsible for paying for the remedial works and, if they refuse, and they may do that, then appoint someone else to do it. Perhaps the Professors, but that decision is for Parliamentarians.
As far as the Press are concerned, I would much rather leave that to the Parliamentarians. We have a shortage of investigative journalists of course, but the advantage this story has is that the hard investigative work has already been done for them. However, as I say, that decision is for you.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI am still waiting. How much patience and financial resources is a constituent supposed to have? You are the Scottish Government as far as I am concerned and it is time this was sorted-out? Because this case has lasted for so long, my employment and location of employment and so on will not be agreed within a day and so that process should have started by now. I have heard nothing either from yourselves or from Mr McAteer and that indicates to me that nothing is happening at your end. In view of the gravity of the situation the others are dealing with just now and the amount of information and data they are being asked to look at, what I am asking of you is relatively trivial by comparison isn't it? The more you delay, the bigger the problem gets and the more complex it is to resolve.
I think that this ought to be resolved for me within the next 5-days. The professional engineers and the lawyers have all turned out to be a lot less impressive than any of us expected them to be and the conflicting interests are named above. I'm not one of them and never have been. The whistleblowing case is over, Police Scotland have taken over and so nothing will be achieved by anyone seeking to discredit me and so more attention to your constituent's interests is probably what is needed for now? Please just turn this over to Mr McAteer as there is not a hope that anyone at the Scottish Government will deal with this correctly. I have debts to pay and I want to get them paid and get back to work and the way I look upon this now is that I should never have been out of work in the first place.
George - That took me 2-days and it is only when you start writing that it all comes together. You cannot summarize the events of 9-years in one or two pages. I'm going to try and get finished this week and leave it to Police Scotland. I have explained my strategy for getting you paid for your work (and we can add Mr Campbell too). This shows them all up as a bunch of liars, doesn't it.
ReplyDeleteThey bank on wearing people down
DeleteIf someone were to report "malfeasance" to Police Scotland, would that help?
DeleteGeorge - Here's another analogy for you: Margaret Ferrier MP was suspended from Westminster and faced a by-election because she stepped on a train whilst she had Covid. That was an instantaneous decision she took at the time, a wrong one obviously, but that's the price she paid for it. The decision to do the minimum, or nothing, to assist me here was a decision taken by MSP's in the face of expert advice which was given at the time that this was urgent. So, is this worse? Also, I am unemployed and so I have no authority over Brimmond School and that authority is held by Buro Happold and the ICE. If I am proven right and they are proven wrong and with every passing day that looks more and more likely then, reputationally, this will be a problem for both. I am sometimes put in charge of these investigations and I gave them all a recent example of that. Here, I am told to step aside, because Shona Robison's in charge, or Shirley-Anne Sommerville, or John Swinney and we are seeing the inevitable results of that here. I would call it "malfeasance". Basically, if I'm right then the school may have to close and then they'll have the parents and teachers to contend with and that will not be easy.
ReplyDeleteSturgeon put Ferrier to the sword because she wanted leverage for partygate to try and oust Boris. Matheson is part of the old guard and hence Humza wants to keep him onboard at Holyrood.
DeleteIf you compare the Michael Matheson situation with the Westminster expenses scandal; it doesn't look good. MP's went to jail for a hell of a lot less that £11k. Plus, Yousaf thinks that he can say "the case is closed" and he has some executive power like Julius Caesar that allows him to do that. I don't think he does.
DeleteI received one of these "the case is closed" letters from John Swinney in 2017. I will say no more.
DeleteDear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteSunday's explanation was concise and written in plain language that any non-engineer can understand and follow. I didn't receive any questions yesterday and I understand that to mean that it has been accepted and the others can take now the appropriate steps. That is for them. For myself to be released by Friday though, paid and with a job, and that is all that we are concerned with, Mr McAteer should be contacting me about now?
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI informed Mr McAteer earlier of a possible job and I identified the employer to him. I would stress that this is only a possibility and there is nothing definite.
I asked him to provide the employer with a reference to say that my involvement in this investigation over and that my position has been vindicated. The reference should come from the Scottish Government and not from Mr McAteer. I wish to return to work next week and so can that be done now, please?
I have explained that the Scottish Government are responsible for paying my financial losses. My losses, and the public's financial losses too, would have been a fraction of the figure they stand at now had Harper MacLeod, the Institution of Civil Engineers and Buro Happold done their job when I first asked them. I asked, the Scottish Government instructed them not to do it and so I asked the ASCE to do the checks instead. Otherwise, they would never have been done and the cover-up would have continued.
The most complex part of the settlement is the job and there may be a solution to that. Payment of my financial losses and payment for those that have assisted me should be agreed at a meeting with Mr McAteer on Friday 25th November. I do not want any more delays please and an early return to employment is crucially important for me after all of this time.
I am addressing this to you as these are decisions that ought to be taken by elected Parliamentarians.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteI asked Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie to provide a reference for me, and deliver it to Mr McAteer, for a possible employer. The way I look at this is that I have done a thorough job on behalf of all of you over the past number of years and it is time to hand-over to Mr Kerr, Ms Dunbar and Police Scotland.
I wouldn't expect anyone to object to that reference being given? Without the reference, there will be no job. Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie are ignoring me and so can the rest of you make sure that Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie get the message loud and clear that this must be done today?
I am expecting to meet Mr McAteer on Friday to agree a sum to be paid to me to compensate me for my losses since 2014. The Scottish Government are responsible for these losses and I will be expecting them to be agreed on Friday 24/11/23 and for me to be working again on Monday 27/11/23.
Finally, this why whistle-blowing cases have to be resolved quickly and, frankly, the only people who have done their job in this case are Police Scotland. God knows what some of the rest of you actually do.
George - Here you see the true nature of the Scottish Government. I do their job for them then, competently and honestly and, when it's all over, I ask for a reference to be handed-over to an Advocate, it is too much for them to handle. Lawyers aren't the problem this time. As I said on Sunday, The Scottish Government has turned into a nursery school full of vested interests.
ReplyDeleteGood summing up of what passes for an MSP
DeleteAs long as I leave Friday's meeting, paid and with a job, then it's finished for me. You get paid and get your website back.
DeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteI don't know how many times I have to explain this:
1. Ms Winfield has a contractual duty to provide to Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar with the "as-built design review".
2. Has she done that? Because that is all that we are all waiting for.
3. Once it has been issued, 3No things happen:
Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar hand it to Police Scotland.
Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar ask Building Standards Scotland to explain if the school is safe to remain open.
Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar organize my meeting with Mr McAteer for Friday 24/11/23.
Buro Happold were sent the ASCE expert opinions on 3/10/20 and so they know what the opinions of other worldwide experts are and if they are still refusing to provide this information, then I would ask the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Heath and Safety Executive to demand they release it immediately.
If Buro Happold's as-built design review concludes that I have been correct, and I presume that is what we are all expecting to happen, then Friday's meeting can go-ahead.
I will expect to hear from Mr McAteer, tomorrow.
George - The first vested interest was Jackie Baillie and Jenny Laing. It was Jenny Laing's fault originally for not getting an independent check done and Jackie Baillie covered for her. Just now though, it's the Scottish Government's fault because they have issued the letters and attended meetings and so on. Jackie Baillie is just standing in the way like a roadblock. So, it started off she was covering for Aberdeen City Council and now she is covering for the Scottish Government. I reckon that if I have worked this, out several others will have worked it out too?
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteYour primary duty as MSP's is to the public and to your constituents and I object to having this much of my time wasted by MSP's who lack the courtesy to respond. Please communicate with McAteer and with your colleagues at the Scottish Government and ensure that tomorrow's meeting goes ahead.
If I have had 9-years of my life wasted due to political skulduggery, and it doesn't matter to me which political party or political parties are involved, then I am sure that the public reaction and/or Public Inquiry reaction to that will be entirely negative.
George - The ASCE opinions and comments were issued to them in November 2017. In March 2018, Aberdeen City Council and Hub commissioned checks by Buro Happold and 3No other independent companies to look into the situation. Their findings were never published and have remained hidden ever since. This is the locus of the cover-up and I submitted the names of all those involved at the time and that is on record. So, if you look at who was Deputy Leader of the Council at that time, that was the decision maker.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteNatalie contacted me a short time ago to say that Mr McAteer had not been asked, by the Scottish Government, to meet me tomorrow and that is disappointing.
There are two items to be resolved. The first is my employment going forward from here. Mr McAteer has the details of that and so we can possibly leave that for him? I did stress to Natalie that this is important.
The second is payment of my losses and that is the responsibility of the Scottish Government and I have explained that over many iterations to all of you and I presented the evidence, again and for a final time, on Sunday. Speaking as an engineer, I find the evidence overwhelming and so to do a great many other engineers and God knows what you are all waiting for frankly. Are you all waiting on an actual collapse?
It is for you (the Scottish Government) to select which law firm you wish to represent you. It may well be Harper MacLeod as they have represented you up until now. If it is Harper MacLeod, then kindly instruct them to call the meeting for tomorrow. I believe the lawyers I should be speaking to there are Mr James Lloyd and Ms Elizabeth Mitchell.
This really is a disgraceful mess, isn't it.
Dear Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteFurther to Beltrami's advice received earlier, I require a meeting with Harper MacLeod on Monday and so please instruct them to advise me the time for the meeting?
Can I leave the vindication for my actions to date with Harper MacLeod also? That information ought to be sent directly from Harper MacLeod to my prospective employer. I will explain that situation to Harper MacLeod when I sit down with them.
As you can imagine, after all of this time, there is considerable urgency attached to this as my circumstances and those of my wife have deteriorated significantly since 2014 and that ought to be addressed by Harper MacLeod on behalf of the Scottish Government, on Monday.
I think that all copied-in to this Email are copied-in for a reason and all, with the exception of Protect, Police Scotland and Beltrami, should feel pretty shameful that this is the way we treat whistleblowers in this country.
George - It's been a long way for a short-cut, hasn't it?
ReplyDeleteYes, and it is not uncommon
DeleteDear Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteUndernoted is the required agenda for Monday's meeting. Harper MacLeod require 48-hours notice of the agenda and so can you issue this to them today, please? :
1. Payment for myself.
2. Payment for those that have assisted me.
3. Reference and Job to be provided.
The position is that the Scottish Government are responsible for paying my losses and the evidence has been checked and accepted as truthful. The evidence that The Scottish Government has provided has been checked and hasn't been accepted because none of it is truthful and when your policy is: "we aim to tell the truth" then this is an example of the problems that follow.
Once the meeting is called, that will be my communication with all of you, at an end. Harper MacLeod represent the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council and so they are in the best position to determine who pays for this.
I want this to be ended on Monday and you are all clear on that?
George - In Jackie Baillie's case it should read: "I aim to communicate with constituents" or "I aim NOT to do fuck-all for anyone". As understand it, one of the Professors has been consulted.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - Alex Salmond is currently accusing the Scottish Government of "misfeasance" and I have been accusing them of "malfeasance", which is quite a lot worse. I might of course be entirely wrong.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteI have still heard nothing from Harper MacLeod. I presume the Scottish Government has instructed them to call the meeting?
George - Gordon Dangerfield: "This case (the Salmond case) is intended to blow-apart the Scottish Government cover-up which has gone-on for far too long now". I will say no more.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Sarwar, Ms Baillie, Ms Dunbar, Mr Kerr and Mr Cole-Hamilton,
ReplyDeleteWe appear to have a Government which is systemically dysfunctional and so I will address this to all five of you; perhaps that may help?
I attach the "Site 85 Timeline example" from KSA. You have all seen this half-a-dozen times before and, in common with all of the evidence that I have presented over the years, it is clearly genuine and from the most respected sources.
If you take a look at Item 4 on the Timeline: "This site should be inspected by a geotechnical expert", it was answered on the same day, 17/7/17, by a senior civil-servant of the Government of KSA, confirming his agreement. So, what the Government of KSA can organize in less than a day, takes all five of you, how long?
This is the way competent Government works, worldwide, and if the Scottish Government are refusing to do this, the most effective solution may be to report this situation to the Press? If you say: "We are not engineers, but we are fearful that something may be wrong here" that will direct the Press towards the Institution of Civil Engineers and Buro Happold. I am pretty certain that will work and if you don't do that, you stand to lose credibility(?) and with all of the accusations of "misfeasance" and "cover-ups" surrounding the Scottish Government these days, that would be best avoided.
In the meantime, can you instruct Harper MacLeod to call Monday's meeting now, on the basis that Harper MacLeod work for you, the Scottish Government and you work for us, the public. If I receive a "call to meeting" later today or over the weekend, I will meet Harper MacLeod on Monday. I suspect Harper MacLeod will be working this weekend?
George - The two journalists who understand this case are Kieran Andrews of the Sunday Times and Norman Silvester of the Sunday Mail. Both would approach the story differently. I haven't been in contact with either for a while now and I have now left that to the MSP's.
ReplyDeleteDifferent evidence has been submitted, one side says the building is safe and the other side says that the building will collapse. What can we do to test who is correct? We cannot just leave it to chance.
The Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council's evidence says that the building is safe. The other side's evidence is presented by a whistleblower and it says the opposite. Under normal circumstances, the whistle-blower's evidence would be dismissed as personal opinion, lacking in authority and professional support.
Not in this case though. The whistleblower's evidence is authentic and there's a lot of it. The data is correct, everyone (the Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council, Scottish Building Standards, Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers) accepts it, the engineers that produced it are well-known and they identify themselves. The Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council's evidence on the other hand isn't authentic or authoritative. The data is wrong, no-one (other than the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council) accepts it and the engineers that produced it have had their names redacted.
Why don't the Press ask the Institution of Civil Engineers and Buro Happold: "Which evidence is correct?" The matter has already been reported to Police Scotland and so, if the whistleblower's evidence is correct, and that seems the more likely scenario, Police Scotland may ask ALL of the parties that are involved: "Why have you ignored this evidence for so long".
Then, when this is aired publicly, the question that will be asked of our MSP's will be: "Is this building safe to remain open?"
Dear Mr Sarwar, Ms Baillie, Ms Dunbar, Mr Kerr and Mr Cole-Hamilton,
ReplyDeleteThe journalists with knowledge of this case are Kieran Andrews of the Sunday Times and Norman Silvester of the Sunday Mail. I will leave it for you to contact them either individually, or collectively as a group. Alternatively, you may have your own preferred journalists.
Regarding the safety of Brimmond School, two sets of entirely conflicting evidence have been presented. One set of evidence has been presented jointly by the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council and another set has been presented by myself. One set of evidence says that the school is safe and the other set of evidence says the opposite. All of the evidence is attached to this Email, but whose evidence is correct?
This can only be determined by the Institution of Civil Engineers and Buro Happold and, as you can see, both are copied into this Email.
There are many problems with the Scottish Government/Aberdeen City Council evidence, which are 4No "Visual Inspection Reports". For example, in Fairhurst 2(1), 3.2 Ground Conditions, it states: "Groundwater was encountered in the December 2009 boreholes. Groundwater at borehole 2 is 4.0m, at borehole 9 is 3.0m and at borehole 10 is 2.9m". Page 5 of the 2009 Soil Investigation Report (also by Fairhurst) states that the groundwater level at bore hole 2 is actually 1.125m, at borehole 9 is actually 0.400 and at borehole 10 is actually 0.500m. Do these figures make a difference? Of course they do. They make a very big difference and any geotechnical engineer will confirm that.
I can only say that if this was presented specifically in order to mislead and if this was under the auspices of the ASCE instead of the ICE, then the engineers who produced this false data and signed-off on it (their names are redacted) would be facing a long suspension from the profession just now. This is just one example and, as you can see for yourself, there are many others - far too many to list here. On the other hand, there does not appear to be any problems with the information provided by the ASCE. Their guidance goes on for page after page after page and no-one disputes any of it. Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers should therefore be asked: "For what reason have you disregarded this?
Easily most important matter for now is whether the school should actually be open and I suspect the answer to that may be "no, it shouldn't". Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that this question is asked by yourselves and answered by Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers and that is what you and the Press exist to do. I cannot do that for you.
Therefore, can I leave this matter to be taken forward from here by MSP's? Political party differences should be set aside and there is no doubt that is the way the public will see it too. I have carried out a hell of a lot of work over the years, but it has now been handed over to you.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
As you both know, I have asked to meet Mr Lloyd and Ms Mitchell from the Scottish Government's lawyers Harper MacLeod on Monday 27/11/23. Please organize this for me and let me know when you have done that.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie, Mr Kerr, Ms Dunbar and Mr Cole-Hamilton,
ReplyDeleteI understand that the Principals of Buro Happold and Ogilvie Construction are, at long last, taking responsibility for this investigation and that means that I have been proven correct. I presume that one of the Professors clarified that for you and he did so within a few days of looking into the case?
Over the years, my advice and the advice of the ASCE experts has been dismissed by Ms Baillie in favour of contrary advice from John Swinney, Shirley-Anne Somerville, Shona Robison, Jenny Laing, Peter Reekie, Jonathan Moore and Stephen Garvin. Only Peter Reekie, Jonathan Moore and Stephen Garvin are engineers and so Ms Baillie has stepped aside and is now saying: "I'm not an engineer" and is leaving all responsibility with them.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
As you know, I am waiting on a call to meeting from Harper MacLeod. The last correspondence I received from Ms Baillie was on 3/10/23 and that, considering the amount of work that I have put-in recently, is not acceptable. Is this a serious Government? (and that's a serious question)
Kindly organize the meeting and do that today.
George - If there's no Public Inquiry, then the engineers (including the ICE) will be blamed for ignoring the ASCE. If there is a Public Inquiry, then I think a certain MSP will be blamed for ignoring her constituent for seven and a half years. It's a mess, isn't it. People think that Holyrood is just inconsequential incompetence and flummery, but it is worse people think.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - Misfeasance in Public Office: "requires malice, targeted or untargeted, and requires a victim who’s been harmed by an abuse of power".
ReplyDeleteSo many at Holyrood are pretend politicians
DeleteI'll start working on the submission in the morning and I'll send it on Wednesday morning, if I don't hear from Harper MacLeod beforehand. Their advice to everyone so far: "Just ignore this and it will go away". When you do that and it doesn't work out (and in my experience it never works out) then it costs you twenty times more to fix the problem and one of the ASCE experts told them exactly that. Your experience with Professor Rennie was pretty much the same and that is how they work. Protect those they see as the elite and disregard everyone else. The problem in this case is of course they are disregarding the safety of school kids.
DeleteDear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeletePlease get back to me today regarding the meeting with Harper MacLeod. Otherwise, I will report Ms Baillie to the SPSO. Misfeasance requires actual harm to have been done to the constituent by the MSP's action (or lack of action) so it is unusual for a case to proceed on this basis but, it in this case, there may be a public interest imperative for it. Like my report to Police Scotland, this has been a long time coming.
Dear ICE,
Can I suggest that you investigate Mr Peter Reekie for improper conduct with respect to the ICE code of ethical conduct? On or around 8/1/18 (a long time ago) he was presented with "ASCE Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion" by Ms Baillie and Ms Baillie reported that "he did not pay appropriate attention to it" and I have always seen this as being the start of the cover-up.
We are at the stage now where MSP's are saying: "we're not engineers". That was always going to happen and comparisons are now being drawn between the ICE and the ASCE's attention to this case and I have to say that the ICE has been very disappointing. The public have to be able to trust that engineering in this country is in safe hands and I do not have to say any more than that, do I?
There was a previous allegation of improper professional conduct made against Jonathan Moore on 10/6/21 for his reliance on "Visual Inspection Reports", but you adjudged that to be the correct thing for him to do. You may now wish to reconsider that judgement in view of the chaos that has ensued as a result? But, I will leave that for you.
Stephen Garvin is not a member of the ICE, but I understand that he is under some kind of investigation for "Reckless Certification".
George - I'll try and get finished this week. In these cases, they tend to blame one person and that will probably be an engineer. When an engineering design fails, it's difficult to blame anyone else and that's why they are all saying "I'm not an engineer". How many times have they been asked to check this now?
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteLet me explain the timeline for you: I will commence working on the SPSO submission tomorrow and will submit it on Wednesday. Then, once it is submitted it cannot be changed and SPSO will commence the investigation in March of next year.
This is not something that I want to do, or I presume that Ms Baillie wants me to do either as the outcome is unpredictable.
Can I therefore suggest that Harper MacLeod are instructed to send me a call to meeting today, for a meeting to be held later this week? That is the way a situation like this would normally be handled.
I would add that I have attended hundreds of meetings in my life and meeting Harper MacLeod is nothing special for me.
Dear Ms Baillie, Ms Winfield and ICE,
ReplyDeleteI didn't receive any notification from Harper MacLeod today and so I will proceed with the complaint to SPSO. I intend to complete it tomorrow (Tuesday) and submit it on Wednesday morning.
Misfeasance in Public Office requires: "Malice, targeted or untargeted, and requires a victim who's been harmed by an abuse of power". "Abuse of power" means wrongful intention and "Public Office" means a position of authority or service involving responsibility to the public. I will be claiming that a cover-up has taken place and so my complaint will have to be specific and carefully written.
The precedent case is the "Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981". That demonstrated that when the engineer in authority has been asked to check the safety of a design change and "gives the impression" that it is safe and it fails, then that engineer is held responsible for the failure. A "hydraulic failure" has already occurred and the next failure will be a "structural failure" and that situation has been explained to all of you many times.
When the collapse occurs, it is most likely that those held responsible will be engineers and the only question will be are they Buro Happold engineers, Scottish Building Standards engineers, or Scottish Futures Trust engineers, or all of them. The precedent example was Jack Gillum and Dan Duncan who were the engineers at the Hyatt Regency.
I did suggest a week or so ago that Professor Alan Dunlop be consulted as he is an expert in this subject and if anyone in Scotland can give you an authoritative explanation of your legal duties and the lessons of that disaster, it will be Professor Dunlop. Perhaps you should contact him, as a collective group for expert advice, before it is too late?
Can I expect a notification from Harper MacLeod tomorrow? For how much longer do you all want this to go-on for?
That's nine years and two months. It should have taken two months maximum. How the fuck did Jackie Baillie manage to bag a Damehood? One thing she's right about though is that it is all on the shoulders of the engineers now. I'll get writing in the morning and we'll see how it all comes together. Once it's sent on Wednesday though, the bullet has left the gun. So, the involvement of MSP's and lawyers has caused this foul-up and now they step back and say: "I'm not an engineer".
ReplyDeleteGeorge - I'm just getting started now.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms Baillie, Ms Winfield and ICE,
ReplyDeleteAs indicated yesterday, I have commenced my SPSO submission although I intend to wait until I see what today brings before I make the submission tomorrow. I think it would be a good idea for Harper MacLeod to contact me today(?), but I'll leave that for Ms Baillie to organize.
I am concentrating on "Scottish Building Standards" and Scottish Futures Trust" as they are the authorities that have checked and accepted the school and this strategy follows the ongoing Police Scotland investigation into possible "Reckless Certification" which also involves Scottish Building Standards and, if Ms Baillie cares to check her records, that is the situation that she has relayed to me since 2016.
The complaint will be as follows:
1. There has been misfeasance in public office, by Scottish Building Standards and the Scottish Government stretching back to the meeting of 17/8/16.
2. The regulatory "checks and balances" have been set aside by Scottish Building Standards and Scottish Futures Trust.
3. Design Standards have been ignored.
4. Expert advice from 40No independent specialist engineers has been ignored.
5. 4No Visual Inspection Reports have been relied upon instead.
6. John Swinney's letter of 20/12/17 (attached) stated that Buro Happold had checked and accepted the design change and that is untrue.
7. Insufficient attention to the gravity of this case has has been shown by my MSP Jackie Baillie and that has led to needless prolongation.
8. I, those who rely upon the safety of this building every day and the public who have funded the project have been the victims of this misfeasance.
This will be the route-map of the case. If everyone continues to do nothing and the building cracks or collapses, then the above situation changes and Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers will be aware of that.
George - The SPSO deal with everything the old-fashioned way. Everything by post and everything hand-written. I wouldn't be surprised if they stamp it with a rubber date stamp when it arrives and put it in a filing cabinet. That's the way it is still done in the Middle East and so maybe there is merit in doing it that way. I'll scan it and send it to Jackie Baillie and the rest of them. It's basically what I set-out this morning and there will be no surprises.
ReplyDeleteDear Ms Baillie, Ms Winfield and ICE,
ReplyDeleteI have reported John Swinney MSP and Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government to the SPSO for "Misfeasance in Public Office". I reported that the letters sent by both on 30/9/16 and 20/12/17 stating that Buro Happold had checked and approved the amended design for Brimmond School were, in fact, untrue.
I have not asked the SPSO to "investigate" anything as that has already been done. All that I have asked them to do is ask Buro Happold: "Are these letters true and did you say that?" If the letters are found to be untrue, then many years of needless difficulties for myself and my family have flowed from that, public safety has been put at great risk and public money has been wasted. (the letters are attached with this Email).
These Buro Happold checks are the same checks that were requested by Police Scotland on 11/9/23 and so the matter could hardly be more urgent. I have been asking for Buro Happold's checks, Police Scotland have been asking for them and soon the SPSO will be asking for them too. Perhaps Ms Winfield can explain this chronic hold-up? When these checks are complete, will we know if Brimmond School is compliant and safe, or not. I suspect it is the latter.
Dear Mr Baker and ICE,
Both the HSE and ICE have been aware of this case for several years and there may be a public expectation that you would take on a leadership role at this stage. If Police Scotland are investigating Scottish Building Standards for "Reckless Certification" and the SPSO are investigating members of the Scottish Government for "Misfeasance in Public Office", then perhaps the only authorities capable of public trust just now are yourselves? Can I therefore ask you to review the evidence that I have presented, which is "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion" by ASCE members and the evidence that is presented by the Scottish Government, which are 4No Visual Inspection Reports, overmarked with my comments. One of them is clearly bogus and that adjudication ought to be made by those with the correct authority make a judgement and that, presumably, is yourselves? I know that my information is genuine and the Scottish Government's information is bogus, but perhaps some of the others don't know that and they will have to be told? Can I leave that to either or both of you to do that?
Dear Ms Baillie,
I would not expect anyone to go to jail for "Misfeasance in Public Office" but it is a grave offence for any public official nonetheless. It requires someone "to have been harmed" by the misfeasance and I and my family have certainly suffered harm because of it. We have been living on Universal Credit since early this year and I wish that to be ended now and I have explained that to you several times already.
I have been asking you as my constituency MSP to ensure that this unacceptable situation is brought to a close by the Scottish Government's lawyers Harper MacLeod and, as I understand it, you are the only person able to do that for me. All that I require is a "call to meeting" from Harper MacLeod and I cannot for the life of me understand what you are finding so complex about this?
Whistle-blowing cases must be pursued with energy, otherwise they fail. You have been pursuing this case since the Spring of 2016 and the last correspondence I received from you was on 3/10/23 and that is disappointing. What I therefore propose to do is give you until the end of this week to organize the meeting and if I receive no "call to meeting", then I will report you to the SPSO for "Misfeasance in Public Office" and I will do that on Monday 4/12/23.
George - I wonder how it all ends from here? If you recall Alastair Campbell's "4-stages of dealing with a whistle-blower":
ReplyDelete1. Deny it.
2. Deny it again.
3. Use every means possible to discredit the whistle-blower.
4. Agree with the whistle-blower and say it's all been a misunderstanding.
isn't Matheson currently using a version of this?
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Baker,
ReplyDeleteLet me explain the situation at Brimmond School to you again:
This is not about "Building Standards", it is about whether the building is presently safe to use, or not. The experts from the ASCE were simply asked if the building could be rectified. Some said that it could, but a small number said that it couldn't: "This is urgent; get it inspected by an expert and get it fixed". The key word for me was "urgent". That was 6-years ago and nothing has been done. All that you each want to say (and your Email trailing is a good example), is "Not me". Incidentally, it was one of the most conclusive submissions to any of the ASCE expert groups of 2017 and that explains my evidence. It is exceptionally strong, isn't it?
The Scottish Government's evidence comprises 4No Visual Inspection Reports which contain errors and I have over-marked them for you. These are not minor errors and they may not be honest errors either. Professor Cole, in the Executive Summary of the Cole Report (which was issued to you this morning) specifically urged Councils to stop relying on this type of information as it is so frequently wrong.
The question I asked this morning is what submission of evidence you would choose to rely on? I suggested both the HSE and ICE assist the others in reaching that decision as you are the experts in engineering safety. This constant combative arrogance and habitual refusal to communicate will just lead to a needless disaster and I should not have to explain that to the HSE. I am a member of the public, unpaid, and it is not my job to investigate and adjudicate, it is your job and the job of the ICE to do that.
A "limit state failure" has occurred and to identify and fix the problem, requires input from the design engineer with design liability for the project and that is Buro Happold. The analogous case is the Surfside Apartment Building that collapsed a couple of years ago in Florida. That was caused by an incorrect and presumptuous engineering design and Brimmond School is the same. In fact, for reasons that I have explained before, Brimmond School is actually in a more precarious situation than the Surfside Apartment Building was will therefore deform, or collapse, a lot sooner.
Can I suggest that Liam Kerr MSP and Jackie Dunbar MSP interject at this point? (they do not have to copy me in) I have been talking about the sinking of the land and the flooding of the land with groundwater and these are the precursors for structural deformation, as they were at Surfside. This is not my opinion, this is straight out of EC7 and so it is law and if the teachers and parents at Brimmond School have been complaining that something isn't right, then I would be tempted to trust their judgement and insist that something is done about it.
Dear Ms Baillie,
Remember please that I require a response from Harper MacLeod on or before Friday. This is heading towards being the 3rd longest lasting whistle-blowing case in UK history and I am presently trying to work out why that has been the case?
George - "Not me, keep everything mixed-up so that no-one can identify the target, never answer the question asked and talk about something else instead". Even Alastair Campbell never had to do that. We are presently seeing a range of strategies for the bull-shitter.
ReplyDeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteUndernoted are the main entries on my Complaint Form which has been hand-written and sent by post to SPSO. I have been forced into taking this approach because the key people who should be assisting me are not doing that and it would help enormously if you would encourage the SPSO to deal with this complaint quickly as, in my experience, situations like Brimmond School are regarded as "Life Safety" matters by other world Governments and they are dealt with seriously and quickly by dedicated teams of professional engineers.
"Misfeasance in Public Office" requires that members of the public suffer "actual harm" by the actions (or lack thereof) of the named individuals and so I have taken some time to explain that on the form. (As an aside, aren't we in a dreadfully sad situation when the Scottish Government can be accused of causing actual, year on year harm to any member of the public, let alone to whistle-blowers)
It looks as if we are all patiently waiting for Buro Happold's as-built design review? My experience has been that when long periods of silence like this occur, it usually means that the design fails. It cannot be made to work, no matter what Buro Happold do to try and make it work and, if that is the case, then this may be a criminal matter already? I may of course be entirely wrong about that. We shall see.
I received a call from the Press yesterday and they are interested in the approach I am now taking. I am copying this to the Press to confirm my position that:
A) Any further story should be led by Parliamentarians and I would encourage them not to allow this apparent cover-up to continue any longer.
B) I'm only interested in a front page story as my experience has been that anything less than that is too easily dismissed.
I am also copying this to Universal Credit and I will be meeting them on Wednesday 6/12/23. I am expecting my meeting with the Scottish Government's lawyers to have taken place before then and, if that does not happen, than I will be reporting Ms Baillie to the SPSO for "Misfeasance in Public Office" and I will do that early next week. As below, I will copy the form to all of you to ensure there is proper communication between myself and all of you.
To reiterate, it is essential that you put the maximum effort into ensuring Buro Happold's as-built design review is released to those that rely upon the safety of this building every day and that it is done today. If the Scottish Government cannot manage engineering firms like Buro Happold in the public interest, then I it may be prudent to investigate why that is the case at a proper Public Inquiry. Whether it is due to a refusal to communicate, lack of accountability, arrogance or dishonesty, all have been much in evidence and none of it is acceptable.
Section 3 - What are you complaining about:
ReplyDeleteThis is a complaint of "Misfeasance in Public Office" against John Swinney MSP and Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government.
Brimmond School in Aberdeen is a relatively new building. Construction started in early 2014 and was completed in late 2015. I am a degree qualified civil engineer and I was employed as Project Manager for the design and construction of the building and so I understood the design.
When I was on holiday, in August 2014, the Contractor changed the design and when I returned and stated that the new design would not work and would result in the foundations failing and the school sinking, I was terminated by the Contractor. That was the first time I have ever been terminated in my working life.
The client was Aberdeen City Council and Hub and I approached both formally as a whistle-blower and my guidance to them was to get the new design checked by an expert straight away as I was certain that it was non-compliant and would not work. I also approached the Scottish Government and said the same thing to them. None of them took me seriously and proceeded with construction, without carrying-out the checks and Scottish Building Standards authorizations required when a design is changed in this way.
The land surrounding the school started sinking and flooding in the winter of 2015 and it has continued each winter since then. It is therefore a matter of time before the building suffers a structural deformation and has to close. If it suffers a structural deformation while occupied by pupils and teachers, then the possible outcome is obvious and it will not be the first time that a fatality has resulted from a school collapse in the recent past.
I received letters from the Scottish Government's John Swinney MSP and Jonathan Moore confirming that they had checked the new design with the project engineer Buro Happold and that Buro Happold had confirmed to them that the new design was stable. If that is true, and if it is confirmed by Buro Happold, then this matter can be ended now. However, if it is not true, then the school may have to close on safety grounds and it may never re-open. The veracity of these two letters by Mr Swinney and Mr Moore are therefore absolutely crucial.
Section 4 - Background Information:
This story has been in the Press on 3No previous occasions. On each of these occasions, it has been claimed that the land is sinking and flooding each winter. Because the school is built upon "shallow foundations", any sinking of the land will be followed, sooner or later, by sinking of the building itself.
The checks that the Scottish Government have carried-out on the school are all Visual Inspection Reports and they appear to be bogus and full of demonstrably incorrect data, opinions and conclusions.
It was reported to Police Scotland on 4/9/23 and they recommended that a proper check be carried-out by. This can only be carried-out by project engineer Buro Happold.
Aberdeen City Council appear to lack any kind of engineering expertise in their Building Standards Department and, in any case, under the Education Scotland Act, the final authority is the Scottish Government and not the Council.
Police Scotland have been asked to investigate whether the criminal offence of "Reckless Certification" had been carried-out by Scottish Building Standards.
Section 5 - Please tell us how this has affected you:
ReplyDeleteWhen you become involved in a whistle-blowing case, you become unemployable. I have always worked, but I have scarcely worked since 2014, as a result of this case.
My wife and I have been receiving Universal Credit since May 2023 and that confirms that all of our life savings are now gone.
If I am correct, and all of the credible evidence to date suggests that I am correct, then a danger to life exists at the school and it should be closed until it is re-designed and rectified. Specifically, the lives of pupils and teachers are presently at risk.
If the Scottish Government had taken me seriously at the time, the Contractor's Professional Indemnity Insurance would have paid to fix the building. Now, the Scottish Government will (probably) have to pay.
Section 6 Resolution:
The relevant authorities are:
1. The Scottish Government.
2. Buro Happold.
3. Police Scotland.
4. The Health and Safety Executive.
5. The Institution of Civil Engineers.
All of the above are fully aware of the history of this case and are copied into all correspondence, including several sections of this Complaint Form.
This case is analogous to the UK Covid Inquiry in that the right life or death decisions have to be made by the correct authorities and that has to be done quickly. They might not get it entirely right, but they must act and be decisive.
I am an unpaid member of the public, who cannot re-join my profession in any capacity until this case is solved. It should have been solved in 1-8 weeks and it has now been prolongated by more than 9-years and you can imagine the impact of that on myself and my family.
During that period, I have worked constantly on this case, issuing in the order of 1500No Emails, attending meetings with the Scottish Government and collecting expert opinion from named worldwide experts in engineering which I have presented to the Scottish Government.
I am satisfied that Police Scotland deal professionally with the information that I have sent them, but the others do not and that goes-on month after month and year after year.
This case will be closed when Buro Happold confirm that the two letters attached from Mr Swinney and Mr Moore either do fairly represent their opinion that the design change has been checked, by them, and is satisfactory, or do not reflect their opinion that the design change has been checked, by them, and is satisfactory. It will be either one, or the other.
If it is the latter, and I and many other engineers suspect it is, then the school is non-compliant and therefore unsafe. Should the school remain open? That is a decision for Scottish Government ministers.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteI didn't receive any phone calls or Emails from Ms Baillie on today and so I will send the following complaint of "Misfeasance in Public Office" to the SPSO on Monday and that will my final submission to them:
Section 3 - What are you complaining about:
This is a complaint of "Misfeasance in Public Office" against Jackie Baillie MSP of the Scottish Government.
Ms Baillie is my MSP and so I am completely dependent upon her to resolve this case for me and that is what Holyrood MSP's are for. I first asked for her assistance in Spring of 2016. Whistle-blowing cases usually take 1-8 weeks to resolve and Ms Baillie has had seven and a half years and so something has clearly gone wrong.
I recently asked her to arrange a meeting with the Scottish Government lawyers to agree payment of my losses since 2014 and a replacement job. She has not done that and so I am left with no alternative but to report her at this stage for "Misfeasance in Public Office". I have not taken that decision lightly and I have given Ms Baillie ample time to resolve this to an outcome for me and she has refused to do that.
I will be looking at the "locus" of why the as-built design of this building has never been checked. It seems extraordinary that after more that nine-years of disputed opinion, no-one has asked Buro Happold to check. Engineers from all over the world have checked it, but Buro Happold has not checked it and they are the only engineers authorized to do so. There is something clearly wrong here.
Two letters are attached, one is from Ms Baillie to Ms Laing of Aberdeen City Council and the letter is dated 2/8/18 and Ms Laing's response to Ms Baillie is dated 25/1/19. Ms Baillie's letter was sent and the response was delivered 6-months later. Does that indicate to you that either of them took this case seriously?
Ms Laing's response didn't answer any of the questions asked in Ms Baillie's letter and yet Ms Baillie advised me at the time: "Aberdeen City Council are not going to answer any more of your questions and consider the matter closed". That is not the way engineering works and if life safety questions are asked, and these are life safety questions, then they must be answered and I presume that you are all in agreement with that?
Buro Happold, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Health and Safety Executive are copied into this text and my question to all of them would be; "Why are we letting engineering in this country be adjudicated by Ms Baillie and Ms Laing? Why are you allowing this to happen and why are you allowing them to do your job and speak for you?"
The hundreds of Emails that I have sent over the course of the past 9-years are all about engineering design and whether it works, or not and I remain certain that it doesn't work and so too are the many expert engineers who have looked at this independently. I have no interest in Scottish party politics and nor do they. This is engineering and it should be adjudicated only by engineers, without parliamentarians and their lawyers even being involved.
ReplyDeleteOver the years I am aware that Ms Baillie has actively tried to prevent Buro Happold from investigating this case. On 7/8/23 for example she said to Mr Stewart of Buro Happold: "for the benefit of Mr Stewart, your concerns about Brimmond School have been raised on many occasions before with Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government". The point is that regardless of whether Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government accept the school, the only party with authority to check the school and determine its safety are Buro Happold. I seem to have been reiterating this endlessly since 2014. Ms Baillie clearly disagrees with me, but I would be astonished if anyone else disagreed with me at this stage?
If Buro Happold does indeed support Ms Baillie's position (that nothing needs to be done), then both Ms Baillie and Buro Happold will be able to confirm that to the SPSO. I think that is extraordinarily unlikely to happen and so can the rest of you just start communicating and get this work done now, please?
Dear Mr Sarwar,
My submission to the SPSO regarding the "Misfeasance in Public Office" of John Swinney and Jonathan Moore has already been submitted.
Please advise who is taking up this case in lieu of Ms Baillie. As I have stated above, and several times in the past, I am not political but what is reported above reflects upon the honesty of your political party and it clearly shouldn't. I would therefore ask you again to ensure this is resolved as soon as possible and that the MSP that you elect to put in charge of this case contacts me.
I intend sending this by post to the SPSO on Monday and that will be my final submission. If you do not want me to do that, please contact me over the weekend and explain what your MSP proposes to do to settle this putrid situation to an outcome for me.
George - Coincidentally, this is also the route Alex Salmond is following: "Misfeasance in Public Office". I presume that's why the Press are interested.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a rotten corrupt country full of people who don't want to do their jobs or care if their job is done well.
DeleteGeorge - I've been asking Buro Happold to check this since 2018 and Jackie Baillie has been telling them not to check it. Jackie Baillie has authority and so they don't check it. Putrid, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI'll have to hand-write all of the above onto the SPSO form, but I'll do that today and send it on Monday.
George - It is moving quickly now and Buro Happold are saying: "We're not checking this because our design was changed by the contractor" and the contractor is saying: "Our design change was checked and approved by the Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government and so we're not checking it either".
ReplyDeleteA classic Holyrood cover-up following a classic Holyrood fuck-up. How many more times does this have to happen?
I told them this would happen and I wrote that here several times at the start. It is likely that the school will have to close and that means there will be a Public Inquiry. It's been submitted to the correct authority anyway and the investigation they need to do is very simple.
It does sound as though we are finished, or almost finished? I am reluctant to say that nowadays that as I have said it so many times before.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteI attach the Complaints of "Misfeasance in Public Office" against John Swinney MSP, Jackie Baillie MSP and Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government which I have now submitted to the SPSO.
Speaking as an engineer, the evidence that I presented to Mr Swinney, Ms Baillie and Mr Moore in November 2017 is many. many times stronger that the evidence that The Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council and Buro Happold have presented to me since then and that, at this stage, is a problem. My experience in engineering tells me that you have finally lost this engineering, ethical, legal and safety debate to a member of the public and my advice to all of you is that you accept that now and allow me to move-on with my life. The debate is over and you have lost.
I speak as someone who has no authority to affect what you all decide to do now. Whether to elect to keep the school open over the winter or not, is for you to decide together and it is something that should be done quickly, under the guidance of Buro Happold. If you have learned anything from the Cole Inquiry Recommendations that I sent to you, perhaps it was that pragmatic, sensible actions need to be taken quickly by those in authority and doing nothing is not an option? Coincidentally, that is locus of the ongoing UK Covid Inquiry, or it seems to be anyway.
Now that I have made the formal complaint about Ms Baillie's attention to her constituency duties, she can no longer represent me in this case and I have left that with Mr Sarwar to resolve from here and I would ask (again) that he does that quickly. We are all entitled to decent, honest representation by our MSP's and I have not had that, but I am asking Mr Sawar to provide it now. To put a timeline on this: I am due to meet Universal Credit on Wednesday at 10.00am and I would like to have this case resolved to an outcome by then and I am copying this Email to Universal Credit to keep them informed.
My own view of this is that it has been a cover-up and a "pile-on" against a member of the public organized by senior MSP's and the public's reaction to that, and those involved in it, will be entirely negative. I recall Alastair Campbell's "Four Stages of Dealing with a Whistle-Blower" were:
1. Deny it
2. Deny it again
3. Blacken the reputation of the whistle-blower by any means possible.
4. Agree with the whistle-blower and say it was a mis-understanding.
I presume that all of the parliamentarians know of Alastair Campbell? It looks to me that we have finally reached Stage 4; the terminus.
I have not attached the evidence that I have provided to the SPSO, simply because you have all seen it so many times before and it just clutters-up the Email. I add two attachments though which you (perhaps) have not seen before: Attachment 1 is from Mr Watson of Aberdeen City Council to myself and it is dated 8/4/22 and Attachment 2 is from Mr Whyte of Aberdeen City Council to Ms Dunbar MSP and is dated 25/7/23. With due respect to all of you, if you are accepting this evidence in preference to the evidence presented by ASCE experts then we, the public, are being let-down very, very badly by all of you.
George - I'm now waiting on Anas Sarwar.
ReplyDeleteI know Anas, you might be waiting awhile.
DeleteI have been given an incident number by the SPSO; it just arrived an hour ago and that means that they are investigating Swinney, Baillie and Moore for Misfeasance in Public Office. Keep all the evidence and minute every meeting. I don't know anything about Anas Sarwar but if I don't get a response, I will be reporting him too. Don't forget, this putrid time wasting by Baillie and Laing could cost £30-£40m and could easily have resulted in fatalities already and so I will not be standing for any of Anas Sarwar's vainglorious Holyrood gob-shite and neither will anyone else.
DeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteI was assisted at Brimmond School by a Site Manager Colin Johnstone and by General Foreman Gavin Stewart. Both were terminated for making the same complaint that I had been making about the flooding of the land and the softening and sinking of the soil.
Ms Dunbar has the contact details of Mr Johnstone and Harper MacLeod have already spoken to Mr Stewart. Both will be able to provide you with authoritative opinions.
In addition, David Smith Contractors of Fraserburgh carried out the work, both of excavating the deep trench and constructing the foundations. Those managing David Smith Contractors were David Smith and Simon Gilmartin.
It would make more sense contacting these people just now than it would anyone else.
Dear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteI have been advised that the case number for my complaint of Misfeasance in Public Office against John Swinney MSP, Jackie Baillie MSP and Jonathan Moore, is 202308052. The SPSO is regarding the matter as a single complaint and I copy them into this Email, as I do Police Scotland, to keep everyone equally informed. The Institution of Civil Engineers may, for example, now wish to review the Visual Inspection Reports by their members that appear to have wasted so much of our time.
I had a meeting with Universal Credit earlier today and I am also copying this Email to them. I wish to remove myself from Universal Credit as soon as possible and I am now reliant upon you to organize that for me, rather than Ms Baillie.
The Four Stages of Dealing with a Whistleblower were devised by Alastair Campbell after the death by suicide of Dr David Kelly, the UK weapons inspector who stated that the claim that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction that it could deploy within 45 minutes was bogus. A Public Inquiry followed and Alastair Campbell reworked Government whistleblowing policy to comply with his rather loose personal interpretation of what the Inquiry recommended. It is far from perfect but it is, in plain language, what exists in the UK today. I, on the other hand, have had many years of my life wasted due to whistleblowing laws in Scotland being ignored by John Swinney, Jackie Baillie, civil servants and lawyers and so my anger with them is palpable at the moment.
I explained to Universal Credit one possible job that may be open to me, but I require a reference delivered directly to the employer by the Scottish Government. I had been asking Ms Baillie to do that for many months and she refused. At this desperately late stage it may not be possible to resurect this job of course, but I am asking you to try. Therefore, if that can be progressed quickly along with my payment, and payments to the other parties that are involved, then we may have a possible solution.
Scottish Building Standards are under Police investigation for Reckless Certification and two senior parliamentarians and a civil servant are under SPSO investigation for Misfeasance. It was always going to happen. The proper investigative authorities are now involved but what disappoints me is that I have had to do everything for all of you, until the very end. However, I now wish to leave this investigation, get paid and get back to work. Do you understand that?
I was told by Mr Laird that your attention to constituency matters and matters concerning the public is not outstandingly good. That was all he said and so I will respond by saying that if you continue to ignore me, as you have been doing for the past 8 months, then I will report you to the SPSO and I will do that very quickly. Therefore, my advice is that you either give this matter your full attention, or pass it on to someone else who will give it their full attention. You are not an expert engineer and you cannot speak for, or cut across those who are expert engineers and it is only the service of an honest parliamentarian I am asking for.
They have stated that I was an idiot and deserved to be sacked and blacklisted and all the rest of it. They only have to ask Gavin, Colin, David and Simon: "Was he an idiot - yes or no". I think they will say that I was pretty good. So, in the end, they have nothing. Sadly, this isn't any kind of serious government, is it?
ReplyDeleteDear Mr Sarwar,
ReplyDeleteCan I suggest we put a time limit of 12/12/23 on you getting me paid and back to work?
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteAllow me to explain the situation, as I understand it, following a question that was asked a short time ago.
There are two investigations ongoing. The second of those investigations, by the SPSO, will be reliant upon the results of the first investigation, by Police Scotland, into possible Reckless Certification by Scottish Building Standards.
Police Scotland recommended on 11/9/23 that an independent as built design review be carried-out on the building foundations and for reasons that I have explained many times, this can only be done by an independent team of engineers from Buro Happold.
Responsibility for getting that done lies with MSPs Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar who are in charge of this investigation now.
George - I will leave Police Scotland and the SPSO to continue their investigations with the Constituency MSP's Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar and we're now completely finished with that.
ReplyDeleteI am only waiting on Anas Sarwar and if you are right and if he refuses to communicate, then I will submit a final Complaint of Misfeasance in Public Office to the SPSO on Tuesday and that will be us finished with that too.
I suspect that someone with gumption has (at last) asked Gavin, Colin, David or Simon what they think about it all. The great Holyrood cover-up has been uncovered in less than a day.
A job outside of Scotland would suit me fine as the wanker-factor in this country is something I find profoundly depressing.
George - Misfeasance in Public Office means essentially refusing to do something that the public would expect you to do in order to bring about a bad result. It is pretty close to negligence. It is the same accusation that Alex Salmond is making about a different although similar range of people and although Alex Salmond wants his day in Court, I do not and so I have asked the SPSO to look into this for me. The next and final report will be going in on Tuesday and it will be for Anas Sarwar and what I am going to say will allow a straight line to be drawn between him and Jackie Baillie and Jenny Laing as being principal contributors to the cover-up. They have been the principal road-blocks. As you will have gathered over the years, I am not party political in the slightest and I don't think any party comes out of this looking good and they have all missed opportunities, but non more so than Anas Sarwar. We will see if ignoring constituents for this length of time and trying to insulate yourself personally from the chaos that results from that, is seen as acceptable.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - I have started on it and I might be finished before Tuesday. If so, I'll send it.
ReplyDeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteI attach the "Complaint of Misfeasance in Public Office" ,relating to Mr Anas Sarwar that I sent to the SPSO a short time ago.This is the final complaint that I will be sending and, as I make clear in the text, responsibility for pursuing these SPSO and Police Scotland cases now rests with constituency MSP's Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar.
David Smith Contractors are one of the largest and most reputable civil-engineering contractors in Scotland. I presume that someone has now called them to ask their opinion of my advice? Was I right, wrong, or was I exaggerating? That is all that any of you need to know and this investigation will be over. I presume that they will tell you what the ASCE experts told you in 2017.
The fact that it has taken this length of time to contact them is pretty shameful, isn't it? I have contacted engineers from every continent in the world and you could not contact an engineer from Fraserburgh.
As you are all aware, I wish to remove myself from Universal Credit, get myself and the others paid and get back to work and assistance in achieving that should be provided by my constituency MSP, Ms Baillie. Can I ask the rest of you to encourage her to get that done, please?
"Misfeasance in Public Office" - "The offence involving a Public Official acting in contravention of their position of authority resulting in harm, injury, financial loss or damage to a third party". The higher the authority, the greater the misfeasance? That's my logic. Anas Sarwar has authority and he elects to either use it either for public benefit, or Labour Party benefit and the two in this case are different.
ReplyDeleteSimon,
ReplyDeleteI would appreciate your assistance on a few points regarding the groundworks at Brimmond School in Aberdeen. Allow me to say before I start that no culpability is being attached to David Smith Contractors for what has happened there and you were simply complying with instructions given to you by Ogilvie Construction as you are contractually obligated to do.
You may recall the senior management team that Ogilvie Construction has in place at the time included Douglas Jack and Bob Gray,neither of whom appeared tome to have any kind of experience at dealing with these conditions and were as a result insufficiently respectful of them. That was my impression anyway.
I have explained to the others that you are the Contractor who actually carried-out the works including the foundations and the 5m deep trench that has become such a vexed subject over the years.
My advice to the others has been that this trench has caused a discontinuity in the confined underground artesian layers and that, as a result, has caused the sinking of the land and the flooding of the land with groundwater. This will go on each winter until structural deformation occurs and that, according to EC7, is inevitable.
Each time I say that to the others, someone responds by saying:"But no-one agrees with you". These people who don't agree with me have never identified themselves.Perhaps they exist and perhaps not? Who knows.
Contractually though, the only party with authority to make a judgement are Buro Happold and they are taking the position that they do not know anything about this trench, it was not part of their design and so they cannot comment on its potential effect.
Sadly, the position is that we are dealing with a large number of vested interests and that is never easy. However, there is a way out of this. Would you be prepared to confirm that the 5m deep trench along the west perimeter of the site exists? Then, Buro Happold can be instructed to issue a review of the as-built design of the foundations, with the trench included, and that gets us finished.
Police Scotland and the SPSO are investigating this case and those who have allowed it to prolongate for 9-years. I have my own ideas on why it has been allowed to happen, but I would prefer now to deal only with those who understand the subject and who can contribute with strightforward honesty to getting it solved.
I have copied-in constituency MSP's Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar along with Police Scotland and the SPSO. There is not need to respond to me or to copy me in as I intend leaving this investigation to the others now.
I have been involved in a few projects that have finished late or over-budget but never one which is failing in slow motion and you are o doubt the same. What angers me about this is that it could have been stopped at the time and that is what Police Scotland and the SPSO are looking at just now.
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteI decided to report Mr Sarwar to the SPCO yesterday, which was a few days earlier than I had intimated.
I contacted the Director of the Contractor who was responsible for installation of the foundations, and the disputed 5m deep trench, at Brimmond School yesterday afternoon. I copied the Email to Police Scotland and the SPCO and to constituency MSP's Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar for their further action. That was the first contact that I had made with him for almost 9-years and I elected to contact him myself rather than rely on anyone else having the gumption to do it.
Perhaps the impression that you have all been given is that Ogilvie Construction were responsible for physically doing the work. At that early stage they were not and most of their input was by telephone without ever actually visiting the site and I named the Ogilvie senior managers responsible for that situation.
The Director I Emailed yesterday is a senior civil engineer of the highest reputation and he was familiar with the Soil Investigation Report and all the specific frailties of the Brimmond site. I didn't send him the opinions of the ASCE experts or your Visual Inspection Reports, and all that I asked him to do was to confirm that the trench, which wasn't on the design, did exist.
Then, once he has done that, you can instruct Buro Happold to issue the as-built design review (including the effect of the trench) that we have all been patiently waiting for.
This chap is competent, authoritative and trusted and he will no doubt explain to you the same concerns, which are real concerns, that I have expressed. You must listen to him and take him seriously and I presume that you are all in agreement with that? There is a timeline which you should all be working to and that is a term that I have used frequently and it seems to fly over all of your heads, but he will explain it to you. From my experience of working with him, he is available virtually 24/7 and so Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar will have their questions answered instantly by an expert. Will they be the same answers that I have already provided? Yes, I think that is entirely likely.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
This is what happens when you ignore your constituents and this has turned into a "near miss" (which is a term used in the safety industry) of obvious National significance. I am copying this to Universal Credit as I copy nearly everything to them and my point is that my situation is not due to a failure of government per se, it is due in fact to a failure of my MSP and her leader to carry out their parliamentary duties.
I have asked you both on many occasions to either resolve this to an outcome on my behalf, or arrange a meeting with Scottish Government lawyers Harper MacLeod and I will do it. Either will be acceptable to me. What is not acceptable though is this month after month and year after year refusal to communicate and so make up your minds please what you want me to do and let me know.
Jenny Laing: "Not me"
ReplyDeleteJackie Baillie: "Not me"
Anas Sarwar: "Not me"
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteIf you take a look at photograph 3: "showing upwelling water", that is Mr Gilmartin standing on top of one of the underground confined artesian layers at the Brimmond School site and so he is the groundworks expert that identified them. They were identified in the Soil Investigation Report and so we were expecting to find them. As you can see, the soil surrounding these layers can often behave like "quicksand" as it is doing here.
The trailing Email explains that Mr Gilmartin, under instruction from Ogilvie Construction, cut through and made discontinuous not one or two of these layers, but all of them. Does this affect the stability of the building? I think it does but it is what Buro Happold think that matters.
You may ask: "Why if Mr Gilmartin is such an expert, would he agree to do something as reckless as cutting through and blocking all of these layers?" Sadly, when he is instructed officially by main Contractor Ogilvie Construction to do so, he must comply whether he agrees with it or not. However, I'm sure that he expects to be asked that question and so he can answer it for himself. Can I presume that someone, Mr Kerr or Ms Dunbar for example, is going to ask him?
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
Can I expect to hear from Ms Baillie tomorrow (Monday). As I'm sure you both understand, I would appreciate having this settled before Christmas.
George - We'll see what happens this week. How can a cover-up involving so many people can go on for this long?
ReplyDeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteCan I suggest that you request to see the Instruction, referred to below, that was sent by Ogilvie Construction to David Smith Contractors to excavate the trench?
I understand, from an Email sent to me by Harper MacLeod, the Instruction was sent the day after I had left for annual holiday, which would make it a Saturday morning and that in itself is unusual. But, the "date of issue" will be shown on the Instruction itself and David Smith Contractors will have retained not only the Instruction itself, but all of the requests for clarifications sent to and responses received from Ogilvie Construction at the time.
Once you read this, and speak to Mr Gilmartin, the engineers among you will understand the problem and that allows you to find a solution. There is no doubt that David Smith Contractors will have retained this Instruction and will be willing to hand it over when asked. It might be a good idea to ask for it now?
I have had to take you through each step of this investigation right up until the end and all that I am expecting now is confirmation of a meeting date with Harper MacLeod. I have asked Ms Baillie to organize that for me and confirm it to me later today.
George -If you don't persist right to the end, Jackie Baillie leaves with her Damehood and all the rest of it and we leave with nothing. So, I decided to persist. I seem to remember you recommended that a short time ago.
ReplyDeleteNeither of you responded to me yesterday and that is disappointing.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to explain this to you: Very few engineers can afford to be out of work for any more than a few months. I have been out of work for many years and it looks as though it has been needless and I now want this putrid political game to be over.
I asked you both at the weekend to have this resolved by Christmas, which is by the end of this week, and so kindly let me know when the meeting is going to take place. Will it be on Thursday or Friday and that is all I require to know.
George - You see things from a political perspective, whereas I don't. Is this worse that Michael Matheson's internet expenses, or Margaret Ferrier's train journey whilst she had Covid?
ReplyDeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteMisfeasance in Public Office:"occurs when a public official knowingly and willingly acts in a manner with the realization that their actions are likely to cause loss or harm to another, The action is legal but performed in a way that harms another".
Experience shows that I could wait for another six-months on Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar responding and I have spent the past seven and a half years waiting mainly, it has to be said, on Ms Baillie.
Mr Cole-Hamilton is a party leader at Holyrood and so can I suggest that Mr Kerr consults with Mr Ross and Ms Dunbar consults with Mr Yousaf and let us see if we cannot get some cross-party consensus on this? I have been saying,literally for years, that this matter would be considered as "Top Urgent" by most world governments and it would be dealt with instantly and I have proven that to you already. If misfeasance is preventing that from happening here,then identify the misfeasance as I have done and work around the roadblock to achieve a solution.
Harper MacLeod are there to serve all MSP's and MSP's are there to serve all of the public. That's the way it works? So, someone get Thursday (or Friday's) meeting organized please?
This allows (almost) all of them to say: "It was a misunderstanding".
ReplyDeleteGeorge - I was hearing from a neighbour that Sturgeon attended the local book festival. Drove herself there in her own car and so life goes-on. The Sturgeon years were marked for me by everything in Scottish public life being taken-over by women. Some had the qualifications to do the job and others didn't but they all had to be women. Just about everyone involved here is a women and you have to wonder what any of them understand about this subject? It would be interesting to know WHO has contacted Mr Gilmartin and why no-one has done so before now? It may be that his opinion, like my opinion and the ASCE opinions, didn't fit the cover-up and so were excluded. So, it's the impudent wee women of Holyrood, and the other wee women approved by Holyrood (a few men are involved too, but not many), versus the world's engineers.
ReplyDeleteI remember the scoop of Sturgeon passing her test, I wonder if Peter Murrell went as well, since he has nothing to do with his time but wait.
DeleteGeorge - https://twitter.com/theAoU/status/1404486462641430528
ReplyDeleteI have often wondered why it has taken so long for the engineers to do the right thing.
Giving a speech written by someone else who probably knows less than him.
DeleteIn the end, it enters a period of negotiation where only those who can fix the problem are asked to participate. I have heard it referred to in the past as "the tunnel" - a few people go in at one end and only come out at the other end when they have reached agreement on an outcome. I could name at least 80-90 people who have been involved until now and I would expect almost all of them to drop-out leaving about a dozen, maybe less, to sort out the mess.
ReplyDeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteI am at a loss to understand why I continue to be kept waiting. To state the obvious, you are being paid and I am not and I suspect there are few who have been following this case that believe that situation should be allowed to persist.
Trailing is an Email from Ms Baillie, from 18/1/19. Towards the end, Ms Baillie uses the word "frustration" as if she has empathy. Despite having sent several hundred Emails to Ms Baillie since then, she appears to have done little or nothing to progress this matter in almost 5-years. I have been wading through treacle and for a professional engineer to have to endure this is shameful, frankly.
The MSP's with Constituency interest are copied-in and so if I run through what Ms Baillie says line by line, there is something for all of you to do individually and collectively as a group.
1. Ms Baillie presents the allusion that it is only myself that is complaining. That is not the case and the Comments and Opinions of ASCE experts were issued in November 2017. The ASCE are an equal professional institution to the ICE and if you wish to challenge what they say then you can do that but you cannot disregard what they say, as you all appear to be doing. I am surprised that the ICE, HSE and Buro Happold have ignored this evidence and are accepting the obviously dubious "Visual Inspection Reports" instead. I wonder, is there any reason that Ms Baillie dismissed the ASCE evidence, followed by all the rest of you, as if this evidence was bogus in some way? In fact, the only evidence that is bogus are the Visual Inspection Reports that have been accepted by and presented to the public by all of you.
2. Are you still awaiting the opinion of Simon Gilmartin of David Smith Contractors?
3. The analogy that Ms Baillie makes with the closure of Edinburgh Schools is one that I have made myself. There are several differences though. Edinburgh City Council were successful simply because they swept Visual Inspection Reports aside and carried-out their own expert checks that established that the schools were in fact non-compliant and unsafe. Aberdeen City Council are doing the opposite and are rejecting expert checks and are carrying-out their own Visual Inspection Reports so that they can ignore the bad news by pretending that there is no bad news. How can a situation as delinquent as this persist for so long? Ms Baillie is accepting this but are the rest of you accepting it?
4. John Swinney rejected my, and the ASCE member's opinions because he said that Buro Happold had rejected them and they have Contractual authority and that is accepted. Can one of you though instruct Ms Winfield to release Buro Happold's opinion so that we can all ascertain whether or not Mr Swinney was being truthful? I believe that he was not being truthful and it looks more and more likely with the passage of time that I will be proven correct. Hence, my month after month and year after year unemployment is something that , in terms of professional ...
...ethics should be unacceptable to all of you?
ReplyDelete5. The criminal complaint of "Reckless Certification" was opened by Police Scotland in early September and it was investigating the conduct of the then Aberdeen City Council Head of Building Standards. Until Buro Happold's opinion is issued, that investigation cannot conclude and we should be circumspect about anything the Council says until that opinion is delivered. I presume that you all want this to be concluded? If the answer to that question is "yes", then Buro Happold will have to be instructed to release their opinion, otherwise they will not release it. Can I ask why we are all still waiting on that?
6. The ICE decision that Visual Inspection Reports are acceptable is bound to manifest in problems for the future of ethical engineering in this country and it is opposed to the advice delivered by Professor Cole in 2017 after the last school collapse. It is no more than a green light to cowboy builders and it is not the guidance that was expected from the ICE. In the context of the measured and expert advice received from the ASCE, what more can I say?
Does the foregoing give you an idea of how impossible this has been made for me over the years? It makes me wonder if this is an authentic government, competent and honest enough to manage professional institutions, consultants, contractors and public bodies? In the context of the way engineering is run worldwide, that is a question for all of you and when we have a situation where the opinions of ASCE experts are dismissed in favor of Visual Inspection Reports by ICE members, then we may be pretty much at rock-bottom already?
There is only one final comment that I would make and it that we are currently investigating the offences of "Reckless Certification" and "Misfeasance in Public Office" with Police Scotland investigating the former and the SPSO investigating the latter. If structural deformation occurs at the school, and there are members of the ASCE for example that think that is likely, these investigations may quickly turn into investigations of "Criminal Negligence".
I have issued the required agenda for tomorrow's meeting several times already. I want this meeting to take place tomorrow please and so no more delays.
Jackie Baillie - the dissembler.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - I was looking through old Emails last night re Jackie Baillie. She sent me one some time ago saying: "there's no use me sending Parliamentary Questions to John Swinney because he never answers them properly". So, that's it. Constituents can starve for all she cares. It looks to me though as if the vapid women of Holyrood, Harper MacLeod, Buro Happold and even Ogilvie Construction are being withdrawn.
ReplyDeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteI was expecting to be called to a meeting today by Harper MacLeod and I have heard nothing.
Let me be very clear: this matter has been resolved thanks to my work and dedication and that of the American Society of Civil Engineers(and a small number of others). You have all been paid but we have not been paid and that is what I want to resolve today with Harper MacLeod.
I presume you are all thinking: "maybe if we continue to ignore this it will go-away", but that is not the way the world works. So, instruct Harper MacLeod to call the meeting and do it now, please.
George - The truth of the matter is that this was a mistake that has been covered-up for 9-years and they are fortunate it has not resulted in a collapse. Harper MacLeod are just a disreputable law-firm. I intend arriving at the meeting, agreeing the money and the job and all the rest of it, and leaving again.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - Whose fault has this been? If you get support from a good MSP, then it could have been sorted-out withing weeks. No support from an MSP, then you have seen what happens.
ReplyDeleteProblem is, MSPs and MPs are able to do complicated complaints over time, they want simple fixes unless it is an issue they campaign on. This is why most people don't rely on the political class to sort out issues.
DeleteBuro Happold are saying: "he's not wrong, he's actually right" and If the Deputy Leader and Leader of the Labour Party are found to have been misleading the public on an issue as grave as this, then you do not need anything else to campaign on.
DeleteIf you cannot rely on the political class and you cannot rely on lawyers, then why the fuck do we have them? In KSA, Sarwar, Baillie and Harper MacLeod would get 6-years each in Malaz Jail and that would be the public expectation.
DeleteI have mentioned the Shirley McKie case many times. That was investigated by Mike Russell. I've not asked Jackie Baillie to investigate anything. All she has done over the years is stall the investigation because it implicates the Labour Party.
Holyrood exists to solve Scottish problems in Scotland. The ASCE aren't from Scotland, but they've done all the work. They haven't been paid and I haven't been paid. Jackie Baillie has done fuck-all and yet she gets a Damehood. Something wrong? What do you think?
DeleteDear All,
ReplyDeleteI received the trailing Email late on Friday afternoon and I am holding Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar accountable for this.
"Malfeasance in Public Office" means that an individual has been asked to do something and, by not doing it, they have not broken the law, but they have ensured an outcome which is not in the public interest.
"Reckless Certification" has been explained multiple times and there is no need for me to repeat that.
Neither myself, nor anyone that has assisted me over the years, are under any kind of investigation and I do not expect that position to change and that is because we have very clearly worked in the public interest.
The only way that I can exit the situation that I am in is to be paid and returned to work and responsibility for doing that lies with the Scottish Government and their lawyers, Harper MacLeod and that situation has existed, unchanged, since 2014. Both know this and their refusal to engage results in this needless prolongation and you can all see the damage that does.
Equally, Ms Baillie and Mr Sarwar have been asked multiple times to organize this meeting for me and they have refused to respond and you all know that. So, can I request that instruction be given to Ms Baillie to comply with her obligations to her constituents? It would appear to me to be as simple as that. I am clearly in an emergency situation and that should be reflected, respectfully, in Ms Baillie's response to me.
I understand that I should be meeting Mr Lloyd of Harper MacLeod.
I am relying on your response and so please ensure that it is delivered to me at the earliest.
"Misfeasance in Public Office" is investigated differently wherever you are in the world and I recall being in KSA when those accused were collected from their homes in the middle of the night and taken to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh for questioning. That was a very Arab way of doing it and it was unpleasant and anyone who was in the country at the time would affirm that.
I am copying this to universal Credit.
Dear Mr Sarwar and Ms Baillie,
ReplyDeleteYou do not comprehend the urgency do you? It is crucially important that this is resolved to an outcome prior to Christmas.
I have attended hundreds of meetings in my life and so just organize the meeting, please. I am not asking you to attend.
George - Maximum sentence for "Misfeasance in Public Office" is life imprisonment. No-one expects anyone to go to jail for it of course but that reflects the likely public reaction to any parliamentarian or civil-servant who ensures a bad outcome for party political reasons. The Labour Party aren't even in government and so what do you think they will be like in government?
ReplyDeleteGeorge - The SPSO are probably the right people to investigate "Misfeasance in Public Office". "Reckless Certification" however would be a criminal investigation by Police Scotland. Parliamentarians of course will not be investigated for that and it will be Scottish engineers that will, correctly, be investigated. If I and the others have got the engineering right and they have got it wrong, then we must all hope that there is a price to be paid for that. That's the way it looks just now.
ReplyDeleteGeorge - Professor Rennie has been dead for the past couple of years. It will be interesting to find-out though how much of the accountability for this is laid at his door?
ReplyDeleteRennie was a scumbag, I can only hope he sits in hell because that is the right place for him.
Delete