Wednesday, 21 February 2024

Operation Branchform, SNP staff, present and former to be re-interviewed by Police Scotland investigating SNP Party finances, this development in the slow moving case is said to be directed by the Crown Office, Scotland’s prosecution service, is this another false dawn for action, or is the storm about to erupt?


When former Nicola Sturgeon was cornered like a rat by the Holyrood press pack, you could see in her demeanor that she extremely uncomfortable by the line of questioning regarding matters relating to OperationBranchform. Branchform started out as a police investigation into the whereabouts of £600k of a supposed ‘ringfenced’ campaign fund. This Fund was specifically to be used in the event of indyref 2. So, in order to spend that money on the campaign, an officially sanctioned campaign via a Section 30 order from Westminister is what a reasonable person would expect for the SNP to access and spend those funds. When the SNP accounts were looked at by third parties, they flagged up the cash actually held by the SNP was well below £100k. People were then ‘fed a line’ that the money was woven through the accounts, which some people disputed. There were other people who had donated, who decided they had to inquire at SNP HQ as where their donations where. They were told not to worry this cash is ‘ringfenced’, and everything was above board. As SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon told people directly in a zoom meeting that the party SNP finances had “never been stronger” and that people should be very careful about suggesting there was “any problems” with the accounts. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXFGjl1qr1U    

The bottom line is simple, either the cash is there or the cash is not there.  

The Police inquiry began in July 2021, and led to the arrest of Nicola Sturgeon, the former first minister, her husband, Peter Murrell and Colin Beattie, the SNP Treasurer. What is very interesting is that those people tasked as part of SNP national executive committee with responsibility for scrutinising the party's finances started resigning prior to the Police crashing through the door. SNP MP Douglas Chapman stood down from his role as party treasurer citing a lack of "support or financial information". Most people would think that as treasurer, Chapman would be entitled to know what monies have came in, and what monies have gone on, and crucially that they were spent legally. If you think back to the Natalie McGarry  criminal case of fraud, McGarry while in charge of party funds in Glasgow used that money for personal gain and benefit, a criminal trial would see her convicted. Therefore the same rules regarding correct spending of cash going out would be essential for Chapman to do his job properly. According to Chapman, he wasn’t allowed to do his job properly as treasurer because as he put it, SNP HQ weren’t providing the necessary "support or financial information". As treasurer, he decided that this wasn’t a situation which he would allow himself to be put in. Then the resignation of SNP MP Joanna Cherry from the party's national executive committee, as she stepped away, her position was there were "a number of factors" had prevented her fulfilling her mandate "to improve transparency and scrutiny", and "uphold the party's constitution". Although an MP, Cherry who is seen as a Salmond supporter is also a KC, King’s Counsel, a high rank lawyer, patently she didn’t like the new emerging landscape of secrecy.  

The effect of Operation Branchform on SNP polling has been dramatic; trust has been broken between the SNP and the Yes Movement. As the party sinks lower helmed by Sturgeon’s proxy Humza Yousaf there is a feeling that the investigation into SNP finances has been taking too long. The reason for delay is that the Police need to tread carefully, and that the original investigation has mushroomed into other areas regarding the SNP. The SNP pitch to gain public office was based on their claim of they would ensure openness; establish trust and being ethical, the hallmarks of public service. Many people feel those claims of being ‘white knights’ were a lie, a deception on a public desperate to break away from a stagnant political landscape in Scotland. The public want answers, so far, they have been kept waiting for what seems an impossibly long time. The immediate questions from the public which come to mind, is there going to be a trial? When will it happen? Who will be charged and with what crimes? As I stated above, the bottom line is simple, either the cash is there, or the cash is not there.  

In a new development, the pieces of this chess game seem to be moving around the board a bit quicker, Detectives investigating the SNP’s finances have requested to re-interview staff working at SNP HQ. It is said that this action is being directed by the Crown Office, Scotland’s prosecution service. We have already seen people arrested, we have seen Sturgeon’s Glasgow home searched with a big blue tent erected on the front lawn.We witnessed enough police pile into the party’s headquarters in Edinburgh which reminded some of the monty python sketch of the Romans searching a home. The finding of a luxury campervan which cost about £100k plus was also seized from Murrell’s mother’s driveway in Dunfermline, Fife, it now has a new home in a police impound yard down in Govan. A party source has made the claim the vehicle was purchased to aid campaigning during Covid but was never used. One of the eye openers was when Police decided 'check £95K car bought by Peter Murrell'. An electric I-Pace SUV was bought from a dealership in Edinburgh around 2019 but has since been replaced by a rather modest black electric 208 Peugeot. In motoring terms from Jag to 208 is quite a drop.  

On twitter, I occasionally ask the question is Peter Murrell still alive or is the Crown Office hoping he is dead. The reason I ask is that staunch defender of nationalism Peter Murrell has all but disappeared from public view. Gone, like he never existed, it is also said that even within Sturgeon’s inner circle it is unclear about his whereabouts. One would assume he is still camped out in his Glasgow home, but no one knows or how he has occupied his time in the ten months since his arrest. Peter Murrell is like the man who never existed, and his wife Nicola Sturgeon is like a part time MSP. A senior source said: 

“Nobody talks about him, nobody has seen him, nobody knows where he is.” 

Another high up in the party source said parliamentarians and staff members have stopped asking about their former boss. Humza Yousaf, seen as Sturgeon’s proxy, gave Peter Murrell a glowing recommendation describing him as a “proven winner” while Murrell was CEO, whether he still feels the same way is anyone’s guess. Colin Beattie, the SNP MSP and former party treasurer, who was arrested two weeks after Murrell, is still visible in the Scottish parliament. Nicola Sturgeon is also visible although classed by others as a part timer, full time wages for part-time effort. 

There is no doubt that Operation Branchform is like a death kneel to the SNP’s fortunes, it has undermined trust and damaging their electoral prospects. And having a Sturgeon proxy in place as First Minister who is inept will continue to harm the Nationalists’ prospects as a general election approaches. As 2024 is a General election year, the question is how much damage will be done to the number of seats currently held by the SNP, even in supposed heartlands. New in-depth polling research released at the weekend, which showed the SNP is losing support, primarily among middle-class voters who the SNP have overtaxed. This is a direct result of their bad stewardship of Scotland’s finances. 27 polls conducted since Sturgeon dramatically quit a year ago, said there was a direct correlation between the arrests of Sturgeon, Murrell and Beattie and the dip in support for the SNP. There is a feeling that Humza Yousaf’s role is all about keeping the First Minister seat warm for a Sturgeon return. The question is for Humza Yousaf is how do you get rid of a problem like Sturgeon, it is likely she will top the list system in Glasgow, so even if she loses her seat in Glasgow Southside, she gets a second lifeline. For those who don’t know the SNP well, Humza Yousaf isn’t popular, he is seen as a caretaker, and with Kate Forbes seen as the natural leader in waiting, how does a damaged good Nicola Sturgeon present herself a virginal white alternative to Yousaf in a post Operation Branchform world? A spokesman for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said: 

“Senior professional prosecutors from COPFS and an advocate depute are working with police on this ongoing investigation. It is standard practice that any case regarding politicians is dealt with by prosecutors without the involvement of the law officers. All Scotland’s prosecutors act independently of political interference. As is routine, to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations, we do not comment in detail on their conduct.” 

As the SNP employees gear up to face the police once again, you wonder if they kept notes about what they previously said to the police. Three people arrested so far, staff will be keen not to join that group.  An SNP spokesman said: 

“As we’ve said previously, the SNP has been co-operating with the inquiry and will continue to do so; however, it is not appropriate to comment further on a live investigation.” 

In the past SNP employees made claims about the indyref2 campaign funds, the fact the police are still beating the brush shows that something doesn’t appear as it should. Years ago, I blogged that a clear out of SNP HQ was needed while a member; I was told that Murrell and Liz Lloyd appeared to wield the power in the party HQ. Lloyd is now gone, Sturgeon is no longer leader, and Peter Murrell has disappeared. The last time Murrell reposted on his twitter account was 12:36 PM · Feb 14, 2023, then he was gone from twitter. 5 April 2023, police arrested him, and refused to tell the press which station he was taken too. This led the press to stake out Govan Police Station along with other stations in Glasgow area. Murrell, Sturgeon and Beattie are innocent until proven guilty as anyone is, but one wonders what is sitting in the police files but also the evidence lockers of Police Scotland? Many items were taken away in an evidence van. What were the items and how were those items bought? Is this re-interviewing by Police Scotland, another false dawn or is the storm about to hit? Well we will just have to wait a little bit longer, you can feel the tension.  It was announced in early April, after Murrell's arrest, that accountants Johnston Carmichael who had done the SNP for some years had resigned from auditing the SNP’s finances. What was the problem that they didn’t like? Murray Foote, previously SNP media chief, now CEO replacing Murrell openly denounced the conduct of the Police Scotland investigation, saying that the possibility that Branchform is a "wild goose chase". This begs the question, has he found the ring fenced £600k? If not, then it would appear to be not a "wild goose chase" regarding the indyref 2 fund, more like someone’s goose is cooked. 


204 comments:

  1. The Police want to charge 6 people with 24 charges. That has been since before Christmas and the Crown office have been stalling ever since. They cannot charge 1, they need to charge 6 and that is the sticking point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would make for a rather entertaining and long trial.

      Delete
  2. Dear All,

    I spoke to Engineer Prakash yesterday and he agreed to send the updated Part 2 to me and I would send it to all of you but that hasn't been done. This has never happened before and so there is a problem.

    I asked of Ms Raphael on Tuesday if what we were doing here was lawful and in the public interest. I believe that it is, because it has been run by the ASCE for many years, in many countries, without transgressing local laws or the sensitivities of local professional bodies. Perhaps Ms Winfield knows the answer to that question?

    We should have between 10No and 20No respondents by now and it cannot be stopped even for a day and this has now been stopped for 3-days and that explains the gravity of the current situation.

    Can you sort-out between yourselves please: "Is the continuation of Phase 2 legal and in the public interest" and if you decide it is, Engineer Prakash can release the updated Part 2 to me and we can continue.

    I think that we should agree to let Engineer Prakash continue? I am obviously relaxed and confident of the outcome, as just about any engineer would be and I find the reticence to continue alarming, from any kind of public interest perspective.

    Dear Police Scotland,

    My attitude to personal Email data is more relaxed than most. However, this has become a regular invasion of my family's privacy and so it must stop and it is not even slowing down. I have been given an incident number XXXX and I presume it is now being investigated.

    Dear Natalie,

    Mr McAteer is a criminal Advocate and crime in Scotland used to be carried-out by criminal gangs and the public used to fearful of them. Is it now gangs of Scottish public servants we should be fearful of?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This all started with the malicious prosecutions of the Directors of Duff and Phelps, who were the firm responsible for the administration of Rangers. They have now been paid something like £50m and more millions are expected to follow. The Scottish Government paid that money and ever since then, there has been a suspicion that the COPFS has become beholden to them and is no longer independent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Mundell resigned over taxi expenses and Henry McLeish over sub-letting part of his constituency office and the Westminster Expenses Scandal saw a number of MP's jailed. So, the public expectation will be that this is treated the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You could equally shown the clip of the Sturgeon's tearful monologue at the Covid Inquiry - "I wanted to be the best First Minister I could be..." That was an equally grotesque inversion of the truth. She has had more than long enough to wreck Scotland and that is what she has done. I just wonder what the end game is here? Is there anyone left who doesn't think she's a liar? And yet she's still here, commentating on events at Westminster and all the rest of it. Is it not time for her to be gone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She needs to go, but the problem is, no big organisation, WHO, UN, or EU would take her.

      Delete
  6. Dear All,

    I received an Email from Engineer Prakash earlier advising that he is suffering an illness and that he would return the up-to-date Part 2 to me on Saturday. I will then add my comments and send the completed document to all of you.

    More comments have been received but I do not know how many, what they say, or how the document stands at the moment. When you are having dialogue with top professionals you cannot do this, it is most disappointing and I explained that to Engineer Prakash.

    Part 2 will then continue on the ASCE/Linkedin platform until this matter is concluded to everyone's mutual satisfaction and that will include Engineer Prakash, the ASCE and a small number of others that have carried-out work on my behalf over the past 10-years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Raghu,

    Let me refer you to some advice from the ASCE that will reassure you that your unique position will be respected by everyone involved here:

    1. ASCE Ethics Case Study 2 - 14.00min - 15.00min: "The safety of the public comes before your own career development".

    2. ASCE Ethics Case Study 4 - 12.30min - 13.30min: "The prime importance of communication in engineering".

    If you are fit enough and are able to send the up-to-date document to me today, that would be most helpful. If not, tomorrow will be fine.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The only serious charge against Salmond was that of attempted rape. It was proven in Court that that offence could never have taken place, because the accuser wasn't in the building at the time. It was established by CCTV records, witness accounts and even the records kept by the Bute House kitchen staff that the accuser wasn't there. Two things seem odd to me: 1. Why was this not properly investigated before going to Court? and 2. Why is the accusation not perjury, if it was so clearly untrue?

    ReplyDelete
  9. If it proceeds to Court, that will be the last two SNP First Ministers that have appeared in Court each charged with serious criminal charges.

    The end-game for Boris I reckon started not with Partygate, but with the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal which he tried to cover-up.

    That was exposed partly by Ian Hyslop of Private Eye and if we had the equivalent of Ian Hyslop in Scotland, we would all be better off for it.

    The public will only take so much corruption and then the house of cards falls. The only thing I would say is that the Labour Party in Scotland might not be the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Is this another false dawn for action, or is the storm about to erupt?" - It's what you call a "lose-lose" as far as SNP vote numbers are concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I had a look at Wings over Scotland there. I think he does Holyrood chit-chat nowadays. He does it very well but the fascination with Indyref 2 has now gone. I keep wondering (and hoping) that John Swinney has been interviewed by the Police?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear All,

    I am expecting to receive the updated Part 2 from Engineer Prakash later today. It should contain around 20No expert responses by now. You may elect to leave it running for another week, but that is for you to decide.

    I am clearly mindful of Engineer Prakash's position and I wish to see him recognized by the Scottish Government for the work he has done in ensuring this matter was properly investigated by independent experts. Without his assistance and that of the ASCE, the investigation would have foundered and there is no doubt about that.

    Engineer Prakash's legal position is described in ASCE Ethics Case Study 4 and I would encourage each of you to study that video from start to finish. The subject is a fatal building collapse, caused by simple lack of communication and the ASCE's Professor of Law explains that and provides guidance on how to prevent it from happening again. Engineer Prakash, and I, are following that guidance to the letter.

    Engineer Prakash's instinctive reaction has been to provide assistance to a professional colleague who has asked for it and I would expect that position, which is obvious isn't it(?), to be respected. This is Scotland, not some failed-state.

    Finally, if there is one lesson for all of you in this sad sequence of events it is that the HSE should really be in charge of "Unsafe Building" investigations? The concept of this being managed instead by Ms Baillie, Ms Robison, Ms Somerville, Mr Swinney and the numerous other parliamentarians and lawyers is unique in world engineering and it will result in fatalities.

    Raghu,

    If you are well-enough, can you send Part 2 to me today please? If you are able to do that, it would be most helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  13. George - We currently have a group of Glasgow lawyers, almost all of whom are women and all of whom know fuck-all about this subject, against the worldwide experts of the ASCE. You cannot get any more "distinctively Scottish" than that, can you? Isn't this sad? It can all be traced back to Professor Rennie.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear All,

    I was speaking to Engineer Prakash earlier. He is clearly concerned that legal threats could be made against expert members of the ASCE. On the face of it, that is unlikely because all that they have done is comply with their ethical code and report their honest opinions. Is that a punishable offence in Scotland these days? However, these are real concerns and so I must respond.

    I asked Engineer Prakash to send the updated Part 2 to me and to remove the identity of each of the engineers that have presented an opinion. If Buro Happold, or the ICE, wish to identify of any of the engineers, they can consult the ASCE/Linkedin platform and I understand that only they are able to do that. I presume this suggestion is acceptable?

    Dear Natalie,

    The suggestion that Engineer Prakash is concerned on behalf of his professional colleagues is something I find shameful. The legal profession in Scotland exists to protect the public, not to menace experts from overseas that are offering help.

    I explained to Engineer Prakash that when Part 2 is issued, this can be concluded to an outcome and I will expect a settlement which will include a job, and payments made to those who have worked to assist me, this coming week.

    Can you ask Mr McAteer to call me on this tomorrow, please?

    Raghu,

    Can you issue the updated Part 2 to me in the morning please with the names and photographs of all of the engineers redacted? I will return it with my comments tomorrow afternoon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Raghu,

    I attach the two Visual Inspection Reports by Fairhurst that were sent to me by the Scottish Government. You will notice that the names of the engineers have been redacted. That is what I am asking you to do with my information to them.

    Sadly, we are in a situation where the Scottish Government's information to me is bogus and my information to them is genuine and Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion Part 2 is proving that in real time.

    I am not aware of anything that stops you from sending the redacted Part 2 data to me this morning, me completing my section and returning it to you this afternoon and you updating it on the ASCE/Linkedin platform by the end of today.

    Dear Natalie,

    Can you advise if there any reason why Engineer Prakash and I cannot proceed as indicated above?

    ReplyDelete
  16. George - Engineers working overseas are respected and that is the accepted position. I find the allusion of legal threat issued is Engineer Prakash and his colleagues to be reprehensible. I've worked in Africa and the Middle-East as you know, and I have never heard of this happening before. This, like so much else that has been happening in Scotland over the past 10-years, is needless and disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. George - I'll tell you an interesting thing. One of the respondents to Part 2 is a UK Professor of Engineering. I have his opinion, I will not post it up here, but we received it a week ago and it is exactly the same as mine. Raghu put the date and time received at the bottom of his response and the Professor answered it before he left home for work. It probably took him 10-minutes. I have been waiting for 10-years on Scottish lawyers. They know this of course.

    ReplyDelete
  18. George - One last point for now and one that will particularly interest you imagine. I have been discussing analogies all of the time until now, but now it is time for irony. Professor Rennie is the lawyer who wrote the book (literally) on negligence in Scottish law. He is long dead of course and so his days of threatening you, and me, are over. His legacy though, certainly with respect to this case, is sure to be a problem though, isn't it? You have been following this sad story for years and I know that your view on Rennie is exactly the same as mine and that in fact was probably the reason you took an interest in this case. What I am saying is that he has arguably caused damage to the legal profession in Scotland by his actions.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Mr Baker, Ms Winfield and ICE,

    Engineer Prakash returned the updated Part 2 early yesterday. I have responded and the up-to-date document is attached. He has used this platform for many years and was relaxed about identifying the engineers.

    Part 1 ran for 6 weeks and produced 47No expert opinions. Part 2 has been running for 6-days and has produced 8No expert opinions and I notice we have the advice of a Professor of Engineering and a Doctor of Engineering this time.

    What I would observe is that all of them, and that is more than fifty in total, agree with me. The question is: Do you agree with me?

    Unless you have other ideas of your own, the answer to the problem has been worked-out for you already and is attached. The school needs to be fixed, rather urgently, doesn't it?

    Dear Natalie,

    Ms Baillie's position is that the Scottish Government adjudicated on this matter years ago, that is the end of it as far as she is concerned and she has made-up her mind to do nothing. So, where do we go from here?

    I explained the engineering to Scottish Building Standards on 17/8/16 and 23/5/19 and Mr McAteer attended one of the meetings with me. Their position is explained in the two letters attached and it is now proven to be entirely wrong.

    The question is: How can Scottish Building Standards be so reckless, ignoring world engineering opinion for this length of time, only to be overwhelmed by weight of numbers in the end and are we to accept that there has been no criminality involved?

    I cannot live for eight years, nine years and now ten years without money and a paid job. Scottish Building Standards employer is the Scottish Government and they have caused my losses. Can you return to me with a meeting time this week where my losses can be agreed and paid?

    If I had to make one suggestion that would prevent this from happening again it would be that whenever anyone steps forward to report a concern of this type, accept that it is a real concern and get it properly checked by engineers, not by lawyers. I sent Part 1 to Mr McAteer in 2017 and he did nothing. I am therefore sending him Part 2.

    I am expecting the final meeting to take place this week and I do not want to be kept waiting any longer please.


    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Mr Baker, Ms Winfield and ICE,

    Engineer Prakash has kindly offered to message those who took part in Part 1 of the discussion, asking them to take a look at Part 2. That may bring us all to the inevitable end point within days, rather than weeks?

    I attach Part 1 to remind you who these engineers were and what their guidance was in 2017. I presume that Dr Stephen T-------'s guidance may be pivotal just now?


    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear Mr Baker,

    I understand the responsibilities of the HSE are: "To assist and encourage persons concerned with matters relevant to the operation of the objectives of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974". That is all I have ever asked you to do and so can you do it, please?

    The first question I asked was: "In England, under the Building Safety Act, the HSE is in charge of building safety investigations. In Scotland, Shona Robison MSP is in charge and it is for you to decide whether or not this is working. I do not believe it is working.

    The final question was: "Has this building been "recklessly certified"". That is a matter for Police Scotland and they requested an independent design check be carried out but that request was ignored by the Scottish Government and so I am doing it now, with ASCE members.

    I am waiting on Part 2 being updated, but I attach Part 1 and Part 2, as it currently stands, with this Email. The question the public will ask is: "Why are you ignoring this?" because, in terms of worldwide engineering, there is no higher authority than the ASCE.

    You represent the HSE in Scotland and so it is for you to decide what you are willing to do and not do, I am only pointing-out what I have done and what I believe members of the public would expect you to be doing just now.

    Dear Natalie,

    We are currently running at approximately 50No expert opinions in agreement with me, against zero in agreement with the Scottish Government/Aberdeen City Council and I fear that this is only going to get worse for them. How much longer do you want this to go-on for?

    Raghu,

    When you have time, can you send any additional expert opinions you have through to me? What you have provided so far, both in 2017 and again now, has been of the highest professionalism and honesty and I think we can all agree upon that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. George - The seeds of this disaster were set, of course, by the impudent and grotesquely crooked Professor Rennie. I cannot post anything up here but Raghu's submission to the ASCE experts was outstanding and one of the strongest I have ever seen. The responses are coming back and they support me 100%, as I say above. Hence, everyone is running around saying: "Not Me".

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dear Mr Baker,

    Allow me to try again: "The HSE are the UK's national regulator for workplace health and safety". Only, in Scotland, it is not the HSE, it is Shona Robison MSP.

    Whilst I agree that the statutory duty for the safety (or lack thereof) of Brimmond School lies with Aberdeen City Council, the problem that we all have is that their Head of Building Standards is currently under Police investigation for the "Reckless Certification" of Brimmond School.

    Under normal circumstances, we would then defer to Scotland's Head of Building Standards, but he is under Police investigation too and therefore, in order to move forward towards a conclusion, I provided the "independent design review" that Police Scotland asked for on 11/9/23.

    My independent design review is by the ASCE, I presume that is acceptable to everyone(?), and the results of it are overwhelmingly in support of my opinion, which is explained in the "Description of Problem" on page 1. Once these opinions are checked for authenticity and accepted by Police Scotland then, I imagine, they will affect their investigation.

    If I can come to what is at the heart of the issue here: ASCE respondent number 6, who replied to me just two days ago, stated - "Once the artesian layer was disturbed, it cannot be remediated to the original". This is what I have been explaining, repetitively, for the past 10-years. Is this a minor defect, or is it a major defect? Will the building collapse slowly, or may it collapse quickly?

    It is not within your authority to answer that question of course, but it is within the authority of Buro Happold and the ICE who are both coped in to this Email. Then, and once that question is answered, we require alignment of response on this from the HSE, the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council.

    Dear Natalie,

    I must insist that my closing meeting takes place. I imagine that most members of the public after reading this, and understanding that I have been re-stating this position for ten-years, would be astounded. What a putrid mess.

    The problem is of course that there are upwards of 70No individuals that have been fully paid for the past 10-years for participating in this "cover-up". What do you think the public perception of that will be?


    ReplyDelete
  24. Dear Mr Baker,

    Attached is an example of a case that Engineer Prakash and I solved in 2017 for the Government of KSA. You will obviously require to have the letters translated from Arabic into English. You have in excess of 70No public servants involved in managing your project and they had 1No civil-servant involved in managing their project.

    In the letters, you will notice the Police have authority, then Ministers and then civil-service. There is alignment, the matter is considered "TOP URGENT" and questions are asked and answered on the same day.

    You are addressing me as if I don't understand how it works and I trust this evidence proves that is not the case. Engineer Prakash hasn't seen this data in years, but he will no doubt recognize it, instantly.

    These situations occur all over the world and this attachment explains the accepted strategy for dealing with them and so can I suggest that you pick-up the phone and speak to your colleagues at Buro Happold, the ICE, the Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council and Police Scotland in the morning?

    If the Saudi Government declare a telecoms mast in the middle of the desert to be "TOP URGENT", then Brimmond School should be declared "TOP URGENT"? I would certainly hope so.

    You are fortunate to have had myself, plus Engineer Prakash, plus the ASCE to work on this for so long. What should have taken a few weeks back in 2014, has taken 10-years but, without our contribution, there could well have been a serious accident and I am certain that after your conversations tomorrow with the engineers, they will convince you of that.


    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Ms Winfield, Mr Baker and ICE,

    When Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion Part 1 was in progress in 2017, I updated it fourteen times in the weeks prior to its issue. I have only updated Part 2 twice and so it still has a long way to run.

    Already, there is agreement that your strategy of carrying-out Visual Inspection Reports and Settlement Monitoring is insufficient and I have been explaining that to you for years.

    Earlier in the week, Engineer Prakash messaged a number of prominent engineers who had taken part in Part 1 and asked them to participate in Part 2 and when their opinions arrive we may soon, perhaps within a week or two, be able to conclude Part 2.

    Moving forward, there are two options:

    1. Buro Happold, the ICE and the HSE accept the advice offered by the ASCE.
    2. If they do not accept the advice offered by the ASCE, they provide their own advice.

    Accepting the advice of the ASCE sounds, by far, the best option to me?

    The purpose of my Email to Mr Baker yesterday afternoon was to explain that governments are generally led by advice from their Police and Police Scotland recommended that independent design checks be carried out on this building.

    It is for you to decide whether to select option 1, or option 2. What do you wish to do because in light of the advice already contained in Part 2, doing nothing does not appear to be a credible option - unless you wish to disregard Police Scotland?

    Dear Natalie,

    It is already evident to the ASCE engineers if not to any of you (yet), that I am correct and so would appreciate a call from Mr McAteer. The "Site 85" example which I sent to Mr Baker yesterday is provided for everyone's guidance. If you work, you get paid and if you don't work, you don't get paid. So, I require a replacement job and compensation is due to myself, and a few others, and ignoring this will not make it go away.


    ReplyDelete
  26. George - These Glasgow University Professors of Law are profoundly dishonest and, if we were in KSA just now, they would be facing jail time. You know this of course, but this is another exemplar case for you. We live and learn.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear Ms Winfield, Mr Baker and ICE,

    I understand that Aberdeen School Project Comment and Discussion Part 2 has been taken down from the ASCE/Linkedin platform. That is disappointing as I presented the text to you a week before it was posted and asked if there was anything you wished to amend and I received no reply.

    It can only assume that it was taken down because you find something objectionable about what the respondents advise should be done and, from any kind of public interest perspective, that is concerning. It strikes me that they are only saying what I have been saying? You have ignored me and now you are ignoring them?

    Do you propose to ignore every colleague in world engineering who does not agree with you and do you really think that will work?

    What it means by default is that we proceed with option 2, where the "Description of Problem" is explained by yourselves, instead of the ASCE? I attach Part 1 and the current Part 2 with this Email. As I said earlier, it would have been far easier to have let it run to its own conclusion and it was well on its way to doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I wish to report that all of "sent" Emails going back to 25th February have just been removed. Is this just a feature of life in Scotland nowadays and should we just all get used to this, or can we not get this stopped, once and for all?"

    This is why posting up here is so invaluable and that's why I keep doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dear Ms Winfield, Mr Baker and ICE,

    Engineer Prakash has offered to post the same posting on another platform. Natalie is aware of what that platform is and I will remove the engineer's names and photographs before presenting the document to you.

    All thee of you have allowed this to descend into a farce which discredits engineering, law, ethics and safety in Scotland as the public interest in this case undoubtedly outweighs all other considerations.

    This has been another two weeks wasted, for nothing. Engineer Prakash and I are doing your job for you, aren't we.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dear Mr Baker,

    Thank you for your response.

    I have four reasons for checking this:

    1. I think that the building could collapse, perhaps quickly, and that is the question now being answered by experts.
    2. Police Scotland recommended that it be independently checked in 11/9/23 and that has never been done.
    3. Building Standards cannot check it because they are under investigation.
    4. I cannot return to employment until the check is complete and I am vindicated.

    Once the checks are done, all four points above will be clarified and so the checks are crucial.

    In England, you would be responsible for doing this, not me. Hence, some support for what I am trying to achieve may be in order? So far it looks as though I am right.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dear Police Scotland,

    I refer to the above case.

    Your recommendation, received on 11/9/23, was that an independent review be carried-out on the as-built design of the building. Since then, I have asked for that to be done many times and no-one has responded. You will be aware of that.

    I have therefore carried out the review with expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and their opinions of the as-built design are attached. You will note that these are respected figures in this field of engineering and their opinions are consistent.

    I am advised that this should be sufficient and that further investigation should be by the authoritative parties copied-in to this Email; those parties are the ICE, HSE and Buro Happold. Scottish Building Standards are under investigation and so my understanding is that are not involved(?).

    There are two opposing opinions, my opinion and the Scottish Government's opinion explained in the attached letters by their Jonathan Moore. You will note that Mr Moore explains that he has the support of Buro Happold and Ms Winfield will be able to confirm if that is true. I suspect it is not true and upon that, the answer to this 8-year long investigation may lie.

    So, can I leave this for Police Scotland to review? There are two matters to be considered. The first is whether this is sufficient to recommend charges of "reckless certification" and that is for Police Scotland. The second and more important matter is whether the school is actually safe to use and that is for the others to determine and if the experience of the Cole Inquiry is repeated, it will be Buro Happold that will take the lead from here.

    This is what the recently introduced Building Safety Act was introduced to overcome. Putting members of the public in a position where they have to prove something is unsafe, without assistance from anyone in the public realm, is what caused the Grenfell disaster and everyone knows that and so we should be doing all that we can to prevent that scenario from re-occurring and, at the moment, I fear that it is re-occurring.

    You will appreciate that I have spent years of my life pursuing this only to come across roadblocks of all types, one after the other, and so I think it is time to pass it over to you for a final determination. I had a meeting with Police Scotland in September and you investigated the matter and responded within seven days and that was with a good professional response.

    ReplyDelete
  32. George - What I have been trying to point out to everyone is that the usual procedure is that the Police make a recommendation and the government carries that out. In this case though, the government has refused and so I have had to do it. I hope the irony of this is not being lost on everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Natalie,

    I had a long rambling response from Raghu half an hour ago. He promises me that no further responses have been received for Part 2. I obviously get-on well with Raghu and trust him but he has obviously been got-at. By whom I do not know.

    This happened in Riyadh when we were there and those responsible were sent to the local jail for 6-years. So, what is acceptable in Scotland, isn't acceptable anywhere else. He was trying to convince me that it is, but it's not.

    My last Email to Police Scotland is therefore where it remains. In their last recommendation, Police Scotland advised that the design should be checked, but they didn't say by whom. Should it be by a member of the public? No, of course not, it should be checked by Buro Happold.

    I have checked it because no-one else, including Buro Happold, was going to do it and they now have the results. They couldn't be any clearer and they couldn't be any more worrying, could they?

    The letter from Jonathan Moore can be checked with Buro Happold and when they disagree with what they are attributed to have said by Mr Moore, and they will inevitably do that, then I have won. It is as simple as that. Nothing complex and it can be resolved instantly.

    As I have stated many times before, I will go quietly and I have no ambition to continue a quarrel with the Scottish Government or anyone else, but I must be paid and given a job.

    That's the situation. I am waiting at home and so ask Mr McAteer to call me when he is ready. It's another Grenfell scenario isn't it and it is either fixed, and God knows how that will do that, or it continues to be covered-up.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dear Natalie,

    Can you show the undernoted to Mr McAteer please?

    You cannot simply wait for the building to crack or deform. The "Ultimate Limit States" are described below and you must act when even one of them becomes apparent - that is when one out of five is apparent. Brimmond School has three out of five which are apparent and that makes it something of an engineering marvel - and I do not mean that in a good way.

    Raghu mentioned this was the Scotgov strategy earlier but it is entirely illegal and the trailing page is all that you need to dismiss that idea. Trust me, the idea is nuts and will end-up getting people killed. I attach Part 1 and if you take a look at what respondent 10 Greg Hayes says, he explains it very clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dear Natalie,

    Show this to Mr McAteer too?

    I attach Part 1 again and respondent 44 Gregory Murawski explains it. Once water attacks the pressure bulbs and the first crack occurs, the school is classified as a "dangerous building".

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dear Natalie,

    I am passing over to you all the information that I think you will need and I am keeping it as short as possible.

    Raghu gave me a talk about liabilities yesterday. The position with respect to that is as follows: When Mr McAteer and I first went to see the Scottish Government in 17/8/16 and I reported this situation to them, presented them with a slideshow (which you will still have) and said: "This school is going to subside". If they had taken me seriously and investigated it properly then, Ogilvie Construction and their insurers would have been liable.

    Because they instead relied upon a visual inspection report which has proven to be bogus, the Scottish Government is now liable for everything. That situation is cemented still further if they have said that they are supported by Buro Happold and that turns out not to be true. But, that is for Police Scotland to check.

    Raghu has been a great support to me over the years and so too has Mr Laird and I am insisting both are paid for their work and that situation is clearly not going to go-away. By the way, I did "Site 85" with Raghu and that is an example of how honest and accountable world governments work.

    I will copy this through to Raghu later, just to reassure him of the current situation and it is for him to elect to send any more opinions through to me. My guess is that we should have around 25No by now?

    For Mr McAteer's perspective, it is important that the public are not seen as being treated like peasants here. Who is told to pay me is not my worry, but I will accept a settlement that includes payment to myself and the others and a job and I have repeated that many, many times.


    ReplyDelete
  37. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZNWWaQOd5Y

    ReplyDelete
  38. Raghu,

    That's 5No respondents, two of whom are Professors of Engineering. That is enough and we hand over to Buro Happold now.

    Natalie,

    Can this be ended now?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dear Natalie,

    The matter is in the hands of Police Scotland and so can I request that my situation be resolved to an agreed outcome this coming Friday? I seem to have been making that request for years but the situation has been finalized over the past 2-weeks and I have been proven correct.

    It is just as well I persisted as it is clear that no-one else was going to do anything.

    "Quantum" hasn't been discussed and I will leave that to be advised by Mr McAteer. There are several others to be paid of course and it is not only Engineer Prakash. A replacement job has been discussed and I am expecting it to be agreed on Friday and let me say to you now, that is essential.

    This has been 10-years of my life which has been needlessly wasted. I will copy this Email to Engineer Prakash and I am sure we can all thank him for his great work, although the length of time this case has taken to finalize has astounded him. He expected this to have been settled in 2017!

    Contact me please with an appointment time?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dear Natalie,

    I am finding it impossible to sent the below Email to Engineer Prakash in KSA. He has been blocked from my account and has even been blocked from my wife's account. All I want to ensure is that he gets paid for the work he has done and that is the least we can do for him.

    Prior to being blocked, he sent me the opinions of 5No experts, two of whom are Professors of Engineering and another is a Doctor of Engineering and they all agreed with me and so, as far as I am concerned, the investigation is over and I presume that is the accepted position now?

    They say the best form of social security is a good job and ten-years without a good job has stress-tested that saying to the limit hasn't it and so get back to me ASAP with a time for Friday's meeting, please?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dear Natalie,

    I presume that everyone is saying "not me" and refusing to pay and so let me provide for you the first notice that I sent to Harper MacLeod, on 13/9/14, warning them that a mistake had just been made and asking them to get it checked.

    Also provided is Harper MacLeod's final Email to me, of 23/12/19, which states that my claim was "groundless". But, we now have many expert opinions which show that my concerns were not groundless and should have been checked at the time.

    For many years, Harper MacLeod's opinion was accepted because it was from their Professor Rennie. Now and at last, we have the opinions of distinguished Professors of Civil Engineering and their opinions are entirely different. They couldn't be more different, could they?

    Therefore, can we all agree that Professor Rennie was wrong and that I was right? That means that Harper MacLeod are responsible for paying me and that would I expect be the public expectation at the moment.

    I am no longer waiting on Harper MacLeod but I am waiting on Mr McAteer and, allow me to be very clear with you, he is costing me a fortune and I wish I could understand why he is doing that.

    The ICE, HSE and Buro Happold are copied into this Email and the question I would ask them is: "Is this treatment of a professional engineer, by lawyers, acceptable?" Because any kind of alignment between the ICE, HSE and Buro Happold, with myself and the ASCE experts, would bring this to a conclusion instantly and I think we all know that.


    ReplyDelete
  42. George - It looks to me as though that's where the money will be coming from. They are a profoundly awful company who treat the public like shit.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dear Natalie,

    The way PS-20230902-0558 stands at the moment is that the independent design review recommended by Police Scotland on 11/9/23 has been carried-out and is attached again with this Email. If Police Scotland require any further information on the opinions provided, or if they require further expert opinion, they can contact Engineer Prakash direct and, as I see it, my involvement in the Police case is now over.

    It is crucially important that Friday's meeting goes ahead. That can either be with Mr McAteer or with the Principals of Harper MacLeod. It can be with either one, or the other, but not both. All that I am asking you to do is organize the meeting for me, and I have asked you many times to do that and so can you advise by return Email a time and location for the meeting please?

    After Friday, I will be paid and returned to work and all actions will, from that point onward, be by the ICE, HSE, Buro Happold and Police Scotland.



    ReplyDelete
  44. Dear Natalie,

    I explained this morning that I want this to be resolved to an outcome on Friday 8th March. I am waiting for a time and a location? Gordon Street, or Carlton Place?

    Compared to Parts 1 and 2 that I presented to you, this is not complex at-all and so can you communicate with Mr McAteer and (I presume) Mr Lloyd of Harper MacLeod and let me know who I will be meeting, please?

    I think we can all agree that this investigation is now over?


    ReplyDelete
  45. As I understand it, I have won and the Contractor is preparing to get it fixed. Part 2 is final, it is by the best engineers there is an there is no doubt, having read it, that I am right. 10-years of this shit has been exhausting.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dear Natalie,

    I am aware that Ogilvie Construction have now commenced designing a deep curtain drainage scheme for Brimmond School. I would expect it to follow the scheme shown in Parts 1 and 2 which was suggested by myself and Raghu Prakash and was peer reviewed at the time by many experts. The suggestion was made so that it could be used and if it is now being used, then that is encouraging.

    My expectation is that I (and several others) will be paid and a job will be provided for me by either the Scottish Government due to the actions of Jonathan Moore and Stephen Garvin, or by Harper MacLeod due to the actions of Bruce Caldow and Professor Rennie and I expect Mr McAteer to assist me with that. It looks increasingly likely that the meeting will be with Harper MacLeod?

    Sending thirty, or forty, or fifty E-mails in order to get anything done is exhausting, incredibly time consuming and it is unacceptable from any sort of professional stand-point. I have attended hundreds of meetings in my working life and have never, before now, encountered such a refusal to communicate and to be held accountable. I very clearly want to be paid and returned to work and that is all.

    If you are not going to respond then kindly ask Mr McAteer to respond in the morning; by telephone if he prefers.


    ReplyDelete
  47. Dear Natalie,

    If Mr McAteer doesn't call before mid-day, I will call you.

    If the meeting is with Harper MacLeod, then I don't need Mr McAteer to attend.

    After the meeting, I would expect my involvement to be at an end.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dear All,

    I am expecting a call from Natalie later today to confirm my meeting appointment tomorrow. I understand that tomorrow's meeting is likely to be at Harper MacLeod's office.

    The investigation, as far as I am concerned, is now over. As you know, I have not been paid and neither has Engineer Prakash. Nevertheless, we have responded and have managed to provide a good quality engineering investigation within less than a week and it is now over to you.

    The public expectation will be that you have the authority for carrying-out these investigations by virtue of being paid to provide that service. Whether that is safety, engineering or law, you are the statutory authorities and I have only done this because you have not done it.

    The investigation has been left such that each expert that contributed, and there are approximately 50No in total, can be contacted via the ASCE/Linkedin platform and, in that way, the document is verifiable wherever you are in the world. If you contact them, they will respond and that's the way it works. Parts 1 and 2 are attached again.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dear All,

    This morning's Email disappeared from my records a short time ago. I send everything through to Universal Credit and I recovered it 5-minutes ago from them.

    I think it would be a lot easier just to organize the meeting?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dear All,

    I am expecting Natalie to call and she knows I am waiting for her.

    Yesterday's Email explaining liability has been removed, but the school must be fixed now - is there any alternative? and that means that either the Scottish Government or Harper MacLeod will be blamed and if it were to be Harper MacLeod, then he evidence that I have seen would support that.

    They are a privately owned, for profit, law firm and they do not run the country and so can an instruction be given to them now, please?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dear All,

    I have once again had my Emails deleted. That is twice in one day and it is becoming tiresome and something of an embarrassment. The below Email is copied again from my Universal Credit account.

    Police Scotland asked for an independent check to be done, I provided it on 26/2/24 and it is now for you, as the authoritative bodies, to interrogate that information and decide whether or not it warrants action being taken by the building owner Aberdeen City Council. I think it does.

    They will have to be told whether or not the engineering design is compliant, safety is compliant and criminal law is being complied with. I have tried to warn them many times over the years, but I have no authority to do that and they refuse to listen. The action is therefore with you and not with me.

    As far as my situation is concerned, I understand that we are in the realms of "public law". I have done what's ethically right for the public and Harper MacLeod must do the same and I am sure that you will all agree with me on that.

    Dear Natalie,

    It would be a good idea for Beltrami to be able to demonstrate a very clear strategy of working on behalf of the public interest. The first step on that road would be to call me?


    ReplyDelete
  52. Dear Police Scotland,

    I have reported the deletion of Emails from my account several times now and I was give the above incident number on 3rd February. Every Email that I send on this subject is currently being deleted, it has happened 3-times already today and the below Email was deleted a short time ago and the content has had to be retrieved from my Universal Credit account.

    I am reporting the advice of Professors of Engineering and Doctors of Engineering. Someone obviously doesn't want to hear their opinions and so they are instructing that they are deleted and I find that extraordinary. Surely something can be done to prevent this from happening?

    Dear Mr Baker, Ms Winfield and ICE,

    The key thing to appreciate is that I am a member of the public and you are paid to provide guidance to the statutory authorities who in this case are Aberdeen City Council. A concern can therefore be reported by me or any other member of the public, and most jurisdictions encourage the public to do that, but the investigation should be carried-out by all of you communicating together and working in alignment. In this case and rather than wait and allow the stasis to continue any longer, I carried-out the investigation myself and it confirms that there is a very grave problem with the design of this building.

    Dear Natalie,

    Allow me to try a different approach: I am satisfied that I am a competent engineer and yet I have been unemployed for most of the past 10-years because of this case. I am therefore due to be paid and given a replacement job, the payment should come from Harper MacLeod and the job should come from the Scottish Government. If you have a different idea then I will listen but if not, then that would be an acceptable starting point for me. I was referring to "public law" a few hours ago and that means that the public interest, in law, comes first. I appear to have done everything for Mr Baker, Ms Winfield and the ICE and it is time that my problems, which are now great, are addressed in a serious way.



    ReplyDelete
  53. Dear Police Scotland,

    I wish to report that my home computer was accessed again, fourteen times, last night and Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion Part 2 was removed from its stored location.

    This was first issued on 28/2/24 and presumably its authenticity has been checked? If so, then I would expect any government to act upon its recommendations and to do that instantly. We should not expect the attempted deletion of that evidence and a refusal to communicate.

    Engineer Prakash who produced Part 2 for me and Norman Silvester the Sunday Mail journalist who reported on this story in November 2021 and September 2023 have both been blocked, meaning that I am unable to Email either. Can I ask that these blocks are lifted, please?

    I attach Part 2 as it is obviously causing anxiety and rightly so. If the HSE, ICE and Buro Happold accept this information then it is their duty to, in the first instance, warn the school owner that a risk to the safety of the public exists at Brimmond School and I presume that has been done?

    Finally, I attach the Visual Inspection Reports by Fairhurst which have been used until now to justify the safety of this building. Part 2 proves them to be entirely bogus and that is the basis of my allegation of "Reckless Certification" against Scottish Building Standards.

    Dear Natalie,

    We are at an extraordinarily sad juncture and I do not need to explain it, do I?

    I suggested a solution that would be acceptable to me yesterday and it is trailing. I am asking you to consider it and respond to me today. I look upon this as 10-years of my life and my family's life which have been needlessly wasted and "public law" which I described yesterday as "the public interest comes first" applies to Beltrami as it does to any other law firm.


    ReplyDelete
  54. George - We are inching closer and closer to another Watergate scenario, aren't we? The removal of incriminating data in the middle of the night by agents of the government. The seeds were set of course by the grotesque Professor Robert Rennie and this is where it has ended-up. You have no doubt never even heard of "Reckless Certification" - Police Scotland hadn't even heard of it. But, Part 2 looks like pretty conclusive evidence to me that it may have taken place. We should both be getting paid by Professor Robert Rennie's old team and so you will be presented with some kind of justice at last.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Dear Police Scotland,

    I have not noticed any deletion of Emails or data from my computer today. Also, I was able to contact Engineer Prakash in KSA a few hours ago. Experience shows that this would not have been possible without Police Scotland's input and so thank you for that.

    He said that he had been sending updates of the Part 2 document to me and he expressed surprise that I had not been answering them and sending them back. The truth is of course I have not been receiving them. Is it possible that his Emails to me are being diverted to a different address?

    He told me that one of the recent respondents is Dr Stephen Thomas who is the UK's foremost expert on the subject of groundwater and is a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Dr Thomas responded to Part 1 in 2017 and I am sure that we can all agree that his opinion will go a long way to resolving this.

    If Police Scotland can ensure that Engineer Prakash is able to send the updated Part 2 document to me, that would be most helpful. I understand that he is trying to do that but that I am not receiving it. Moving forward, I would rather allow Part 2 to run its course from here, without any further delay.


    ReplyDelete
  56. Dear Police Scotland,

    I received the following from Engineer Prakash at 17.41 on 8/3/24:

    "BTW you have not replied for Dr. Stephen Thomas and another on.

    Send your replies so I can keep them updated

    Raghu"

    There is obviously still a problem because I am receiving nothing. Dr Thomas is respondent 14 and 17 of Part 1 (attached) and he is one of the foremost engineers in the world in this field. He is based in the UK and, like all engineers, he wants to help and it is crucial that we hear what he and the others have to say.

    Then, once that has been done and I have responded and Part 2 is updated and re-issued the matter of whether, or not, Brimmond School is safe for the public and all other matters which are contingent upon that can be settled.

    Engineer Prakash is doing this extra work out of concern for me as he is aware of the circumstances that I have been left in over the past years, but his work is of the very highest public-interest value in Scotland and so we should do all that we can to allow it to continue uninterrupted to its conclusion.

    By the way, I am still unable to contact Mr Norman Silvester by Email and that has been the case for several weeks now. Once that situation is corrected, we may receive a different response from those copied into this Email?


    ReplyDelete
  57. George - This is an example of what the Scottish Government has turned in to. In Mr Bates versus the Post Office, this is being called "malfeasance". I have suffered harassment and Raghu is suffering harassment and yet Jackie Baillie gets a Damehood for eight years of doing fuck-all to help anyone. Raghu's computer skills are as good as I've seen in anyone. He thinks that he is sending Emails to me but they are obviously being diverted elsewhere and I am not getting them. In 2017, Dr Thomas said: "The soil is completely saturated; what do you expect will happen?" I don't know what he has said this time but I should find that out later today.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dear Police Scotland, Mr Baker, Ms Winfield and ICE Scotland,

    I received the attached Part 2 update from Engineer Prakash half an hour ago and I have responded. He has included the opinion of Dr Thomas and, as you can see for yourself, his opinion is the same as my opinion and all of the 50No other opinions that you have. How much longer do you want this to go-on for?

    The other interested parties are the Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council, Hub North Scotland and Scottish Futures Trust. Can I ask that you communicate with each other and with them and that you delegate an authorized leader to move this forward as neither myself alone, nor myself and Engineer Prakash, can do that.

    I did suggest some time ago that Peter Reekie of Scottish Futures Trust, as a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, would perhaps be a suitable candidate, but that decision is for all of you.

    What Dr Thomas is saying is that it will cost you a lot of money to retrospectively fix this building, but it will cost you a lot more if you do not retrospectively fix it.

    Raghu,

    We are now at the point of solving this case. It has taken 10-years and it has only been possible thanks to your work. I know better than anyone that in Scotland it takes extraordinary gumption to do this and I have insisted to Natalie that you are adequately recognized and paid for it.

    Dear Natalie,

    I have not put you down for any action, but how much more do you realistically expect me to do before I get paid and returned to work?

    ReplyDelete
  59. "There are many simple and practical ways of mitigating this problem without excavating a 5m deep trench. I am always saddened that complex and critical ground & groundwater operations are so badly managed. Of course we can help, but such a retrospective mitigation operation is costly."

    "Badly managed" by Jackie Baillie, Shona Robison, John Swinney, Shirley-Anne Somerville and a team of 50 or so bent civil-servants and lawyers. However, this is all he needs to say.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Agreed and thank-you for this.

    You responded in 2017, expressing the same frustrations that you are expressing now. Let me just say that I am even more frustrated than you are.

    There are two separate problems and both require to be solved:

    1) Excessively high water table.
    2) Uncontrolled release of pressurized water from the confined artesian layers.

    Can anyone advise a solution to this? Perhaps you can. I will pass your comment on to the building owners and let them decide.

    Waiting for the building to deform first, before you do anything (and what can you do at that point anyway), seems utterly reckless to me."

    ReplyDelete
  61. George - All that anyone can offer now, in 2014, is "mitigation". That means reducing the risk to more manageable levels. I talk about fixing the problem but no-one is offering to do that. Hence, they have waited too long. I refer to Peter Reekie above who used to be the UK's best paid civil-servant and who told the Cole Inquiry in 2016 that in his experience you didn't need to supervise construction as you got the same quality whether you supervised it or didn't supervise it. I hope this proves to be an expensive lesson for that arrogant and delinquent tool of a man.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dear Secretary of State for Scotland,

    I have been keeping you informed of the progress (or lack thereof) of the Brimmond School investigation for the past five-years. My concern is that a mistake was made during construction and that mistake will eventually cause the structure to deform, or collapse. We appear to have reached the tipping-point now, where the school can at last, and authoritatively, be declared "safe" or "unsafe" by those copied into this Email, and so and I will update you again now.

    I visited Govan Police Station on 3/9/23 to report that Brimmond School may have been "Recklessly Certified" as safe since 2015, by Scottish Building Standards. They carried-out a thorough check of the evidence that I presented to them and they recommended that an "independent design check" be carried-out on the building. One would expect that to be carried-out by an independent team of engineers at Buro Happold. Police Scotland didn't directly ask Buro Happold to carry-out the check and so I asked them and they refused.

    I therefore asked Jackie Baillie MSP, Liam Kerr MSP, Jackie Dunbar MSP, Aberdeen City Council, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Health and Safety Executive and they also refused. The matter is undoubtedly of the greatest public interest and so what should I, a member of the public, do about that? Should I do nothing?

    I alerted expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and I explained to them that I suspected the building was on the verge of structural deformation and what should we do about that and what could we do about that? I received 9No responses, two from Professors of Engineering and two from Doctors of Engineering, one of whom, Dr Stephen Thomas who is based in the UK, is held in the utmost regard within the engineering profession when it comes to this complex field of civil engineering. He agrees with my view that a mistake has been made and that the school foundations are now in a sorry mess because of that.

    All of the ASCE opinions are attached to this Email and if they say this building contains a serious defect, then my advice to all of you would be to accept that. Whether the building is currently safe to remain open would appear to me to be within the remit of the Health and Safety Executive, but in order to make their judgement, they require guidance from Buro Happold which, as I say above, they have refused to provide. I presume that they will only provide this guidance if asked to do so by their client Aberdeen City Council and they are refusing to allow it to be issued.

    In my response to Dr Thomas, I promised to put his opinion, and the other opinions, in front of the building owner, Aberdeen City Council but my experience over the past 10-years leads me to believe that putting this or any information in front of them would be useless and nothing would be done and, sadly, that is the case also with the Scottish Government. So, I have elected to inform you instead.

    What can you do?:

    1. Buro Happold have been given the opinions of some of the most respected civil engineers in the world. Do they agree with them and what do they recommend is now done to "mitigate" the present risk?
    2. With that information, the Health and Safety Executive will decide whether or not the school is safe to remain open to the public.
    3. Police Scotland will decide whether there is sufficient evidence that "Reckless Certification" of the school, by Scottish Building Standards, has occurred in previous years.
    4. I have suggested that Scottish Future Trust's Peter Reekie is put in charge of the investigation from now-on as I am unable to continue.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I am suggesting that you instruct Aberdeen City Council and Hub to do all of the above, as no-one else will do it.

    Why has this happened and why have the expert opinions of the American Society of Civil Engineers been ignored since 2017? Trailing is the instruction which was sent to me and copied to the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council by Harper MacLeod's Professor Robert Rennie on 23/12/19. Harper MacLeod provide legal advice to Scottish Government Ministers and Aberdeen City Council (and most other Councils in Scotland) on matters of "public law" and you can perhaps see the problem for yourself?

    Professor Rennie was entirely wrong, wasn't he? Not only that but he was impertinent and authoritarian and that has resulted in prolongation and in the tragic outcome we all see in front of us now. We now have, attached to this Email, the guidance of two Professors of Civil Engineering and the evidence shows that the public can have a lot more confidence in the output of their work than they can the output of Professor Rennie's work?

    The past 10-years have resulted in a considerable financial cost to myself and my family and I have requested that is repaid without further delay. For the reasons explained above, my suggestion is that payment is made to myself and a small group of those who have provided assistance to me regularly over the years, by Harper MacLeod. I have also requested an immediate return to employment and I have left all of these matters in the hands of Ms McLaughlin who is copied-in to this Email.

    As an aside to this, I would be more circumspect about the safety of public buildings which have been built in Scotland by Scottish Futures Trust and the chronology of events which have resulted in this outcome is my evidence for saying that to you. Problems are covered-up and there are vested interests in charge. In 2016, during the Cole Inquiry, Peter Reekie said to Professor Cole that, in his experience, there was no difference between public buildings which were properly supervised during construction and those that weren't. Professor Cole expressed surprise at that response and now you have the evidence that explains why he was surprised.

    Finally, the reason I have asked you to lead this to an outcome is because you are in charge of the Devolution Settlement and if it is not working, for whatever reason, you should be informed and that is what I am doing. As I say above, we are now at the pivot point. Decisions now have to be made and instructions given in the first instance to the HSE, Buro Happold and Scottish Futures Trust and to all of the other parties that are involved and the Scottish Government will not do that. This process is crucially important and so can I leave it in your hands?

    I would suggest the process can be started by Peter Reekie giving Dr Thomas a call and then giving Buro Happold a call? This is going to be expensive.

    Kind Regards,

    S. Dick





    From: Professor Robert Rennie
    Date: 2/12/19

    "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
    Tel: 0141 227 9370
    Fax: 0141 229 7370

    Twitter LinkedIn
    Harper Macleod LLP
    The Ca'd'oro 45 Gordon Street Glasgow G1 3PE
    www.harpermacleod.co.uk

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dear Secretary of State for Scotland and Police Scotland,

    I sent the trailing Email to Dr Stephen Thomas earlier this morning and it is self explanatory.

    He is the UK's foremost engineer when it comes to groundwater and the effect that moving and static groundwater has on shallow building foundations of the type that exist at Brimmond School.

    I previously sent you a list of the names of Scottish parliamentarians, civil-servants and lawyers who have known about this problem for several years and have covered it up and God knows why they did that. Dr Thomas is different and if you want a straightforward explanation of the problem and an explanation of the required solution then ask him, please.

    Dear Natalie,

    Am I safe to assume that we have now reached the end of my personal involvement in this case? I would like to have myself and the others paid for their work and for me to return to work, please. I have been left do everything here, haven't I.


    ReplyDelete
  65. Dear Secretary of State for Scotland,

    This morning, I had all of my Emails stretching back to 29/2/24 deleted. This has happened regularly during the past year and I have reported it to Police Scotland many times under incident number 2876 of 3/2/24. I did so again at 11.35am this morning and I await their action as the deletion of private data is the last thing we all need.

    I have all of my Emails copied in my Universal Credit journal and that seems to be the only safe place for me to store data in Scotland these days. How incredibly sad. As you know, I cautioned Dr Thomas that this isn't a normal client body in terms of professional ethics and although I didn't elaborate, this is an example of what I meant.

    There are probably not many countries in the world where this would be allowed to continually happen. We are corresponding with international experts and if they detect that this client body cannot be trusted, they will walk away and there is no doubt about that. I am trying to help, but I'm afraid this is public-service malfeasance, isn't it.


    ReplyDelete
  66. George - Have They had long enough to ruin the country? After 20-odd years of Holyrood, take a look at what remains. Who the fuck would want to live here?

    ReplyDelete
  67. George - If they had listened to me then the Contractor and his insurer would have paid. They refused to listen, they have been proven wrong in refusing to listen, and now accountability falls on Swinney, Robison, Stewart and Somerville. We have sufficient pressure now and so we do not have to do any more. I reckon all of this will be blamed on Professor Rennie. I know that's what I would do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pity Rennie is dead, it would have been nice to see him publicly ruined while still alive.

      Delete
    2. Being an Emeritus Professor of Law bought him some kudos over the years and enabled his corruption.

      Delete
  68. Dear Natalie,

    I presume the meeting with Mr McAteer can now take place? Can I suggest it takes place on Friday 15th March? Without Mr Prakash's assistance this case would never have been solved and without Mr Laird's record keeping since 2017, some of the most crucial Emails (which have been illegally deleted) would have disappeared permanently and I have requested that both are paid for their work.

    If Mr McAteer won't meet me, then I will meet Harper MacLeod. Can you confirm who it is I will be meeting because, from my perspective, the matter is now finished. If the problem is: "who pays?", and I presume that is the problem, then my suggestion is that Harper MacLeod pay and the public would find it hard to fathom if that were not to be the case.

    All I am asking you to do is set-up a meeting and I will do the rest.


    ReplyDelete
  69. Dear Natalie,

    I received notification of a job vacancy in London for a resident engineer this morning and that is promising.

    This is a matter I want finalized on Friday either with Mr McAteer, or Harper MacLeod.

    Mr McAteer understands the position. I have explained it already and I do not want to have to do so again on Friday. So, can you deliver the message again please: I definitely want to return to work, but that cannot be in Scotland, or the UK.

    There is a worldwide skills shortage in engineering and so finding a job for me isn't a problem. It may be an idea to start sending these job offers surreptitiously to Peter Reekie and Stephen Garvin?....and a hell of a lot of others.


    ReplyDelete
  70. Dear Natalie,

    The agenda for Friday's meeting is:

    1. Payment to myself.
    2. Payments to Mr Prakash, Mr Laird, the ASCE and Protect.
    3. Overseas job for myself.
    4. Apology from the Scottish Government.

    I sent Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion Parts 1 and 2 and the Brimmond Soil Investigation Report to Dr Thomas at the weekend (all attached with this Email) and that is probably enough for him to work-up a scheme to remediate the school.

    As I said previously, responsibility for agenda items 1-4 lies with Harper MacLeod due to the actions of their Professor Rennie and responsibility for paying to fix the school lies with the Scottish Government.

    Let me know a time, location and a note of those attending the meeting as soon as you can please? I do not expect to see anyone from the Scottish Government and it will be either Mr McAteer, or Harper MacLeod.


    ReplyDelete
  71. Dear Natalie,

    The last Email I received from you was on 31/1/24 and a lot has changed since then. From 18/2/24, we have been receiving expert guidance from ASCE members and this Email is copied to the ICE as they are the only UK body competent to assess that information properly and I assume they have already done that?

    If the information is genuine, then this case is over for me as a whistle-blower. Not only have I reported my concerns, I have carried-out the investigation, gathered evidence that proves that they are real concerns and handed it over to the correct authorities for their action and I cannot do any more than that.

    I have asked you many times to arrange a closing meeting to end my involvement in this case and the required agenda is trailing. Can you advise me on this today, please? - as early today as possible as I require time to prepare. I am waiting for you to call.


    ReplyDelete
  72. Dear Stephen,

    I attach the Visual Inspection Reports by Fairhurst and Cundall so that you have them and you know what people are talking about if they refer to them. The over-marked comments are by myself.

    Part 1 of Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion was set-aside in preference to these and I want to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen with Part 2.

    When the school owner says: "This school is safe", that is a lie and so everything from that point forward needs to be a lie and that is what has happened here.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dear Natalie,

    I presume we are not waiting for Harper MacLeod to set a meeting date?...or Jackie Baillie?...or Shona Robison? If we are waiting on them, then the meeting will never happen.

    It is myself that sets the required meeting date, not them, and I set that for today and I have had no confirmation of who the meeting will be with, location, time, or agenda.

    Can you advise me this today please?


    ReplyDelete
  74. Professor Rennie wasn't the only lawyer to struggle with the concept of "public law". It means that each member of the public is entitled to expect the same protections under law as the lawyers themselves get, or that the dopes at Holyrood get. Its not complex, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Dear Natalie,

    Raghu Prakash told me earlier that no additional opinions had been received from ASCE members in the past week. It sounds as if it may have been withdrawn? This is a very sad situation and in terms of "public law", I cannot see how this protects the public.

    If the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and Buro Happold are carrying out the check instead of the ASCE members, then that is what Police Scotland recommended on 11/9/23 and it sounds as if that is finally happening.

    I copy Raghu Prakash into this Email because he has achieved more in a fortnight, in his spare time, than the professions of law and engineering and the Press in Scotland have managed to achieve in 10-years and I expect him to be paid for that.

    I am waiting for you to call and so please do that. You have the agenda. Who do I agree this with? Mr McAteer or Harper MacLeod? That's the only question that needs to be answered at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  76. George - Raghu is a relaxed guy and I would be surprised if he has has spent any more than a few hours on this. But, it has been effective hasn't it. Jackie Baillie, on the other hand, has spent 8-years on it and has diligently managed to achieve fuck-all for anyone and for that she has been awarded a Damehood.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dear Mr Hewlett,

    I refer to the above report which I submitted to you on 5/12/23. My contention was that the individuals named above knew of the risks, the risks had been explained many times and yet they elected to take no action to investigate or to warn any of the other parties that are involved.

    You came back to me on 16/2/24 to say that you had reviewed the case and that there was insufficient evidence to take the case any further.

    You will recall that main evidence that the school is unsafe was provided by the document: "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion" which was a compilation of the opinions of more than 40No world expert engineers and they all agreed with me and if they agreed with me, ergo they disagreed with Ms Baillie, Mr Sarwar and Mr Moore.

    Somehow this evidence by American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) members has been passed-over, not just by the SPSO, but even by the ICE and I am frankly at a loss to understand why you have done that.

    I decided to go back to the ASCE approximately 4-weeks ago and I have now produced: "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions - Part 2" and it is attached below, alongside Part 1. Part 1 was kept running for 6-weeks back in 2017, whereas Part 2 has only been kept running for 2-weeks and so, as a consequence, it contains fewer comments. However, it contains the opinions of 2No Professors of Civil Engineering, 2No Doctors of Civil Engineering and 2No Fellows of the Institution of Civil Engineers and so it is conclusive. Does this provide the evidence you were looking for?

    The SPSO are not engineers and so you cannot adjudicate on whether these engineers are all right, or all of them are wrong and only the Institution of Civil Engineers are authorized to do that and you may conclude your investigation only after you have asked them and they have responded.

    I presume that the gravity of the present situation is obvious and that I can present this additional information and your organization will re-open the investigation based on this alone and that I will not require to re-submit anything else?

    Finally, the ongoing investigation into the Post Office's treatment of post-masters is centering around misfeasance/malfeasance of those that had been presented, for years, with two conflicting bodies of evidence. One body of evidence was patently correct and the other patently incorrect and it is claimed that those accused, accepted the incorrect evidence much too eagerly. If the ASCE evidence is correct, and I obviously believe that it is, then we are in exactly the same situation here and that, from any public interest standpoint, would be completely unacceptable.

    I am therefore asking you, and the ICE, to start doing your job.



    ReplyDelete
  78. Dear Natalie,

    We appear to be at the very end of the road now. Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion - Part 2 has been passed-over to the SPSO and the ICE for their action.

    I think that Raghu Prakash is due a vote of thanks for providing access to so many world class engineers so quickly and I think we can all agree that the quality of work produced by him and the others since 2017 has been really outstanding.

    I believe that my meeting will be with Harper MacLeod and so can you make sure that I am contacted tomorrow with an agenda, date, location and time for the meeting? This is all that I am asking you to do.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Dear Natalie,

    I am waiting for your call.

    I have done a lot of valuable work over the past 4-weeks to bring this case to a conclusion for everyone and the last thing I want now is to be met with a wall of silence from Beltrami.

    You know the situation and so get the meeting arranged and call me to confirm when you have done that, please.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Dear Mr Hewett,

    Thank you for your letter. I will keep the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and the Secretary of State for Scotland copied-in. We are now at a crucial juncture as the decision that is taken now could have life or death consequences for those who use and depend upon this school every day.

    As I said in my Email to you yesterday, the starting point is whether my concerns are correct and that can only be decided by the ICE. If my concerns are correct, and I am certain that they are, and I have been ignored for the past 10-years, then the public reaction to that will be entirely negative as it will be seen as a cover-up.

    I have approximately 50No expert opinions supporting me and you have no-one supporting you. To give you some grasp of the context, if my 50No experts have an average of (say) 15 years of experience in geotechnical design, that means that I have a total of 750No years of experience on my side and you have zero experience on your side and the position of your organization thus instantly becomes implausible.

    Perhaps the most distinguished ground-water engineer in the UK at the moment, Dr Thomas, stated a fortnight ago: "It saddens me when complex ground and groundwater projects are so badly managed". When you get involved and attempt to cut-out the experts, as you are doing now, that is the scenario that leads to people being needlessly killed. He knows this and so do I.

    I have asked for the investigation into "Misfeasance in Public Office" against Jackie Baillie MSP, Anas Sarwar MSP and Jonathan Moore to be re-opened, after the ICE opinion is received, that is what I asked yesterday, I am asking again today and I presume that you will agree to do that?

    So, in summary, please advise me on the position of the SPSO after you have received guidance on the safety of Brimmond School from the ICE.

    Dear ICE,

    According to the ASCE, it is an engineer's professional responsibility to put the safety of the public before their own career development. I don't know if you are aware of that expectation, but this case has tested it to the very limit, hasn't it? 10-years? I think it is perhaps time for you to intervene and I am asking you to do it on behalf of the public.

    You have a choice to make: the public expect engineering design to be in safe hands and for it to be properly and independently checked by experts and so you can either accept the guidance of the 50No named experts, or you can accept the decision to do nothing by Mr Hewlett? It's either one or the other and so which is it to be?

    You can either agree with the experts, disagree with the experts, or you may think that they are exaggerating? It is either one of these three options and that is all we need to bring this sad sequence of events to a close. We very clearly should not be in a position where the ASCE are doing so much to help and the ICE are doing nothing.


    ReplyDelete
  81. Dear Natalie,

    I sent the earlier Email to the SPSO, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Institution of Civil Engineers and, within minutes, all of my Emails stretching back to 11/2/24 were deleted. My position on this is that it doesn't happen elsewhere in the UK, it doesn't happen in Africa, it doesn't happen in the Middle-East and it shouldn't happen here either. It is putrid and I will say no more as it is pointless.

    If this is what the Devolution Settlement has brought us, then God help us.

    As I have explained over the past few days, this case is now over for me. I have handed-over the latest ASCE data to the ICE and it is for them to adjudicate and their decision will determine whether or not the school building is safe to occupy.

    The ICE opinion will also inform Police Scotland's decision regarding "Reckless Certification" and the SPSO's decisions regarding "Misfeasance in Public Office".

    So, I have done everything for you, haven't I.

    I am expecting Friday's meeting to go ahead with Harper MacLeod. The reason that I am holding them accountable for my losses is the 23/12/19 Email by their Professor Robert Rennie:

    "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
    Tel: 0141 227 9370
    Fax: 0141 229 7370

    Twitter LinkedIn
    Harper Macleod LLP
    The Ca'd'oro 45 Gordon Street Glasgow G1 3PE
    www.harpermacleod.co.uk


    I have subsequently been found correct by all 50No ASCE members and that is good enough for anyone and I think that some gratitude for having the gumption to continue for this length of time, and under this type of relentless provocation, would not go amiss just now.

    The agenda for Friday is as follows:
    1. Payment for myself.
    2. Payment for Mr Prakash, Mr Laird, the ASCE and Protect.
    3. Overseas job for myself.
    4. Apology from the Scottish Government.

    Please ensure that this meeting takes place and, let me be very clear, I expect Harper MacLeod to address all of these items as the public should not be paying for any of this. I was speaking to Mr Prakash a few weeks ago and he was under the impression that the Scottish Government would be paying, but that is not the way I, or I think the public, would see it.

    I need to get paid and get back to work and so just get this done tomorrow, please.


    ReplyDelete
  82. George - Is this the biggest scandal in the 25-years of Holyrood?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to be right up there, so many failing the public service that should uphold beyond everything else

      Delete
  83. Dear Natalie,

    I asked you to organize the closing meeting with Harper MacLeod for Friday. Please let me know when that has been done as each day of delay is costing me a great deal of money. I have explained that to you before, several times.

    I understand that Buro Happold have, today, been instructed to check the as-built design and I find that shameful. Speaking as a professional engineer, it stinks of vested interests and, dare I say it, corruption and it diminishes the ICE as an honest broker. What a mess they are in and I am glad that I am depending upon the ASCE and not them.

    Harper MacLeod are responsible for organizing and paying for all 4No items on the agenda. So, it will be their meeting, chaired by them, but with my agenda.

    Let me know tomorrow (Wednesday) if they have any questions. I want to return to work immediately and that can be to practically any location in the world, except Scotland. That is for Harper MacLeod to sort-out and the lesson for them is that when you see 50No world experts saying the opposite of what you have just said, just give-up and walk away.

    ReplyDelete
  84. George - The only analogous case I can think of in the past 25-years is the Shirley McKie case. That too was a Scottish Government cover-up but it was exposed by an opposition constituency MSP. In this case though, it is the opposition constituency MSP who has enabled the cover-up and that is what has made it so tortuous. Jackie Baillie doesn't care about me and didn't care about Shirley McKie and that was always going to be her undoing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was one of the cases I supported online as needing a review, they nearly broke that woman with their disgusting conduct.

      Delete
  85. Dear Mr Hewlett,

    I understand that the investigation is starting to move at last and so allow me to quickly update you:

    Buro Happold, who are the engineering firm with design liability for the project, have been asked to carry-out a design review of the "as-built design". If their opinion agrees with the opinions of the ASCE experts that I sent you on Sunday, and no-one expects it not to, then we have a conclusion.

    Why has this taken 10-years? When the problem was explained to all interested parties before the school was even built, why was it allowed to continue, unchecked by the designer until now, and why has this problem which is obvious to absolutely everyone, been denied for so long?

    This looks set to be an even bigger failure for the Scottish Parliament than the Shirley McKie case of 1997-2008 which resulted in a Public Inquiry and so it would be prudent for the SPSO and the ICE to take this situation very, very seriously just now.



    ReplyDelete
  86. Dear Natalie,

    In the past few days, Buro Happold were at long last instructed to provide an "as-built design review" for Brimmond School. I have been asking for this to be done since 13/9/14. It is probably finished and has already been issued.

    I attach minutes of Technical Meeting 8, which explains Buro Happold's position on 8/7/14. As you can see, it is exactly the same as the ASCE experts' position, which is exactly the same as my position.

    If Buro Happolds position remains unchanged, and I would be astonished if it did not remain unchanged, then I am duly vindicated.

    The fact that I have had to re-state this position so often and over a period of many years until now is really disappointing and it doesn't take too much imagination to consider what would inevitably have happened to Brimmond School if I hadn't persisted and shown this resilience.

    I am copying this Email to the Secretary of State for Scotland, Police Scotland and the Institution of Civil Engineers as they are the authorities trusted by the public to ensure that this building is properly fixed as I think we can all agree that the Scottish Government and all of the other public bodies in Scotland have failed.

    Mr McAteer has been trusted in ensuring that my interests and those of the small group of individuals and organizations that have assisted me over the years are protected and he can start doing that now.

    It seems as though I have been asking to meet Mr McAteer every week for the past year and it would be a good idea for him to arrange that meeting or else he risks being sucked into the same vortex as Harper MacLeod and I would not wish that on anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  87. George - I'll give you another of the ironies of Brimmond. I was trained in an engineering design office in Edinburgh. They have a great heritage in this type of design and much of my thinking goes back to that training. It turns out that this is the firm that they have all turned to for help. Buro Happold have said: "Ogilvie Construction changed our design and so now it is their design, not ours". They are of course correct. Ogilvie Construction have said: "Scottish Building Standards checked our design and approved it and so now it is their design". They are correct too. Hence, the taxpayer will be paying. A very large number of people (well into double figures) ought to be sacked for this.

    ReplyDelete
  88. George - Piper Alpha was caused by a mistake, which was caused by some pretty indefensible work practices. But, it was a mistake, whereas this is a cover-up.

    The following year, the strength of feeling against the company involved, Occidental, had become so great that they left the North Sea and are now a much smaller company because of that.

    It makes you wonder what the outcome will be for all the companies that are involved in Brimmond School? What will the outcome be for the civil-servants?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Dear Ms Winfield,

    I sent the attachment, Technical Meeting 8 of 8/7/14, to the others earlier today. I am aware that your team of engineers have recently examined the veracity of my concerns and this information is intended to assist them.

    The meeting was attended by your Mr Chapman and Mr Royston and the Hugh Mallett report on contamination was presented at the start of the meeting. In it, Mr Mallett advised that contamination removal should only proceed when authorized and that excavations should not exceed 1m in depth.

    The next day I left for annual vacation and when I returned, I learned that the site team had excavated to 5m, straight across the site from north-west to south-west, without authorization and the soil investigation report shows that this is the area of already collapsing ground conditions.

    My concern is that this excavation has de-stabilized the land, not just in the vicinity of the excavation itself, but over the whole site due to the effects of piping and scour, caused by the discontinuity in the confined artesian layers.

    I asked this question to expert members of the ASCE last month and I attach their responses for you to consider and the question for Mr Mallett is: "Am I correct and will this excavation destabilize the land?" Once he answers that question, I should be vindicated and thus enabled to return to work.

    As I have explained to you before, there is no allusion that Buro Happold are responsible for this and the attached letter by the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore suggests to me that it is the Scottish Government that now have design liability.

    Can I suggest that you communicate your response to the Institution of Civil Engineers and you do that as quickly as possible?

    Dear Natalie,

    Once Ms Winfield provides her response, I can be vindicated. That means specifically, I can be paid and returned to work. It has taken a very long time to get one simple question answered hasn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  90. George - I cannot post anything up here but when you are dealing with folk that you do not trust, not 100% anyway, there is some doubt there, always take minutes, get them issued to all attendees and keep hold of them.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Dear Natalie,

    I sent the minutes of Technical Meeting 8 of 8/7/14 to Buro Happold's Ms Winfield yesterday so that she can read in Buro Happold's own words that not only were they aware of what was happening Brimmond School at the time, they were so concerned by what was happening that Hugh Mallett wrote a report criticizing it and if a 1m deep by 2m long excavation alarmed him so much that he did that, then we must assume that a 5m deep by 30m long excavation would alarm him much, much more as it did me.

    Minute 8.8.8.5 states: "JC (of Buro Happold) advised the meeting that all comment on these recommendations should be directed to BH Environmenal Engineers". So, my advice to you is to leave this matter to Buro Happold's Environmental Engineers. Ms Winfield now has the most recent ASCE opinions on the matter and so ratifying the safety of the building is for Buro Happold. As I have explained, finding a solution that works, at this late stage, is going to be extraordinarily difficult.

    As I explained yesterday, Mr McAteer's job at the moment is to protect my interests and he does that by communicating. By constantly delaying, all he is doing is prolonging the stasis and taking the weight of responsibility off Harper MacLeod's shoulders and on to his own. I have been in exactly this situation before with another government and I know what works and what doesn't work and so please accept that. What Mr McAteer has been doing for the past 8-years hasn't worked and so it needs a re-think.

    I have respected Mr McAteer's position and my position is set-out above and so I will expect a call from him today.


    ReplyDelete
  92. Dear Natalie,

    Forgive me but if you take a look at 4.8.4.2, it states: "The contaminated area has now been completely backfilled with clean stone". What that means is that the 1200m3 of soil that was removed under my supervision was turned into a free draining aquifer, as recommended by ASCE respondent number 8, Luis Ricardo Vasquez Varela, who is a Professor of Civil Engineering: "Restore the pattern of layers to the initial condition as a free-draining aquifer because the other characteristics are already disturbed". That was also my solution, it was expensive, but it worked.

    In my absence, the Contractor's solution was to remove another 1500m3 of soil and completely backfill with clay, thus turning it into an impermeable dam and that has clearly not worked. It was never going to work. Myself and the ASCE have explained this to you many, many times over more than 7-years(!) and I am now asking the ICE to explain it to you.

    I tend not to save the minutes of every meeting I attend for years on end, but that meeting discussed what was a contentious issue, Buro Happold do not issue critical reports without good reason and so I elected to save the minutes and it is fortunate that I did that because Buro Happold were clearly not going to hand them over. These minutes, in the context of the ASCE opinions of 2017 and 2024, prove that I have complied with my professional and legal responsibilities to the letter. Mr McAteer and the ICE may determine that the others have not?

    I have made it clear already that I wish to speak to Mr McAteer about ending this nightmare for myself and my family and so ask him to call please.

    Dear ICE,

    The note at the very end of the minutes states: "Should you wish to amend these minutes by addition or omission, do so by contacting us within (2) days from the date of cover letter, otherwise these minutes shall be considered final and valid". This, as I understand it, is the internationally respected protocol within engineering?

    I'm pretty sure that there are a number of your members that really ought to be properly investigated for compliance with the ethical code?



    ReplyDelete
  93. George - The minutes and the ASCE opinions are incontrovertible evidence that I was sacked for doing the right thing. I have reported a small number of people to Police Scotland for "Reckless Certification" and to the SPSO for "Misfeasance in Public Office". In truth, I suspect there is little enthusiasm within Police Scotland or the SPSO to pursue either.

    I have been publicly humiliated, deprived of income for 10-years and now they must pay and get me back to work. Professor Robert Rennie set the seeds for this disaster of course, but many should now be sacked for this. Sadly, the engineering and legal professions in Scotland come out of this really poorly.

    I'll leave the best 'till last though: Jackie Baillie achieved a Damehood for this. Jesus wept. "For outstanding service to her constituents".

    ReplyDelete
  94. Dear ICE,

    After issuing two or three thousand Emails on this subject over the course of the past 10-years, I am hoping that this will be the final Email.

    The Buro Happold as-built design review has been underway for five working days and it should be finished. I am expecting to be fully vindicated and that means that I will be paid, those that provided assistance to me will be paid, and I will be returned to work.

    This document is also crucial to the investigations into "Reckless Certification" and "Misfeasance in Public Office" that have already been opened. These are public interest investigations and so they should proceed to proper investigations and outcomes by Police Scotland and the SPSO.

    The communication plan is as follows:

    1. Design review is sent by Buro Happold to the ICE.
    2. It is sent by the ICE to Mr McAteer.
    3. It is sent by the ICE to Police Scotland.
    4. It is sent by the ICE to Mr Baker at HSE.
    5. It is sent by the ICE to Mr Hewlett at the SPSO.
    6. It is sent by the ICE to Mr Garvin at Scottish Building Standards.
    7. It is sent by Mr Garvin to Scottish Government Ministers.

    The matter of the most crucial importance of course is that the building is properly investigated and stabilized. Buro Happold's review will explain how that can be done and it will not be easy and what the ICE do now will determine whether this story appears in the "New Civil Engineer" as a case you helped resolve, or appears in the Press as a case you didn't help to resolve. I have elected to express this bluntly because there doesn't appear to be a single engineer, worldwide, that doesn't agree with me and it is your Institution that should be active in explaining that to the others just now.

    I am only waiting on Mr McAteer contacting me.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Dear Police Scotland,

    I wish to report that I have had all of my Emails deleted again, within the last 30-minutes. I managed to stop the deletion of the trailing Email sent this morning, but the others have vanished.

    Deleting Emails at this stage is going to delay anything. Notwithstanding, we ought to be able to function in an honest, accountable and professional environment and that is very clearly not happening.

    I BCC these Emails to Engineer Raghu Prakash in Saudi Arabia where this would be being investigated properly by the Police as a criminal offence. Is it not a criminal offence in Scotland too?


    ReplyDelete
  96. Dear Police Scotland,

    My previous Email was sent to the Secretary of State for Scotland by mistake, but this is for you action, please.

    Can I request that all Emails which have been removed from my account, are returned?

    If the Buro Happold design review (which was requested by Police Scotland on 11/9/23) returns with recommendations which align with those received in the past month from the ASCE experts, and that appears inevitable, then the last thing that any current or future professional contributors want is for their advice to be handled by a communications forum which is not secure and I am sure that all of the others would support me on that.

    We are on the threshold of one of the most significant Inquiries in the 25-year history of the Scottish Parliament and so please take it seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Dear Natalie,

    The check was carried-out last week by Mr Stewart and Mr Phillips, the Heads of Buro Happold's Edinburgh and London Offices. Their recommendations will be more circumspect than anything we have had from the ASCE and you can work out for yourself what that means.

    I am disgusted by the continual deletion of my Emails and the refusal of Police Scotland to do anything about it. This is the very essence of public law and what saddens me is that whoever is instructing it to be done believes that by deleting a few dozen Emails, this will go-away.

    This could have been resolved in 2017 when ASCE Part 1 was issued and I am asking again in 2024 now that ASCE Part 2 has been issued. Several months without income is a problem for most and so 7-years without income is devastating and Mr McAteer will be aware of that.

    I am now handing-over to you and I am asking for this to be concluded to an outcome by the end of this week please. You have the agenda, I have repeated it many times and so please ask Mr McAteer to call me today or tomorrow on this.

    This Email is BCC'd only to Universal Credit who are trusted and Mr McAteer will understand, after the shameful events of yesterday, why that is necessary. I have been correct from day-one and this has been 10-years of my life and my family's life which have been needlessly wasted.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Dear Natalie,

    Can I put a firm timeline in this?

    I asked that Mr McAteer call me today or tomorrow, but I have been asking him to do that for months and he never responds. I will give him until close of business tomorrow and then I will send the trailing Email to Buro Happold and the ICE, and I will ask them to intervene on my behalf.

    My justification for doing that will be that the investigative work done by myself and the ASCE over the years, should have been done by them and we have saved them from facing the inevitable Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse type Court proceeding in years to come. That's fair, isn't it?

    All the BCC's will be copied in this time and that includes the Press.


    ReplyDelete
  99. Dear ICE and Ms Winfield,

    I am still waiting on Mr McAteer getting back to me and so permit to to add to add some additional explanation and justification to what I explained trailing on Saturday:

    The first missed opportunity to realize that this school contained a latent defect was in "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion - Part 1", which was issued to my constituency MSP Jackie Baillie in November 2017. She advised me that it had been disregarded because Aberdeen City Council, the Scottish Government and Scottish Futures Trust disagreed with it.

    Stasis then set-in for the next six-years and it didn't matter how much additional evidence I provided, and I must have provided around 2000No items in that time, which is an extraordinary number, but Ms Baillie was resolute and so nothing was achieved during that time, because nothing could be achieved.

    I therefore walked in to Govan Police Station in Glasgow in September 2023, with my evidence, and I asked Police Scotland to look in to the situation. They returned a week later with a recommendation that the as-built design of the building ought to be checked by independent experts. I asked MSP's Jackie Baillie, Jackie Dunbar and Liam Kerr to do that and I explained that it was a matter of the gravest public concern, but they refused and their refusals went-on until February 2014.

    Was I about to enter another stasis? Waiting on MSP's? I should only have to wait for a week or two and I had already waited for 6-months and they weren't communicating and so it felt like it was about to start all over again.

    I therefore re-engaged with the American Society of Civil Engineers and I produced "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions - Part 2", which is by named experts, some of whom are Fellows of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Therefore, we now at last have the information that Police Scotland recommended. The MSP's refused to do anything and so I did it for them. But, what do we all do now?

    These experts have no authority over Brimmond School and so their recommendations have to be checked and agreed by those who do have authority and that is Buro Happold. I understand that was done last week by Buro Happold's Edinburgh and London offices and so we now have all of the expert opinion that we need and the checking is now finished.

    ReplyDelete
  100. My suggestion at the weekend was that this information is handed-over, by Buro Happold, to the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and that they distribute it to those who require it to complete their investigations. I made that suggestion as communication should now be managed by the Institution that has authority to set ethical standards within the engineering profession and that is the Institution of Civil Engineers.

    I have received two letters from Buro Happold and both letters gave the impression that they were unaware of this design change. The "Minutes of Technical Meeting 8" demonstrate that is not the case. They demonstrate that very clearly, don't they. Secondly, Buro Happold's engineers are now in a position analogous to the position that Jack Gillum and Dan Duncan were in during the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse proceedings. The design change has been checked but is it "safe", or is it "unsafe" and they must be very clear when they communicate that to the others. If they say it is safe, and the building deforms at some point in the future, then the engineers who carried-out the checks may alone be blamed, as Mr Gillum and Mr Duncan were.

    In conclusion, I think we can all see that dealing with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has been a relief for me and I have achieved more from them in a fortnight than I could have achieved from all of you in a lifetime and that, from any kind of public interest perspective, is not acceptable and I imagine that you can all appreciate that? You get paid but when the ASCE have to be called-upon time and again to do your job, does it not occur to you that they should be getting paid too?

    Dear Police Scotland,

    Regarding the deletion of multiple Emails from my account: no-one that I have spoken to has heard of this happening before and that means that it is probably not the work of some amateur that I have no connection with. Secondly, I understand that it can only be carried-out by someone that I have previously sent an Email to and that narrows it down to a very short list of suspects. I have no idea whether the matter of Brimmond School will be investigated at a Public Inquiry or not, but Police Scotland should be doing all it can to prevent the continuing disappearance of data which would obviously be crucial to such an Inquiry.

    Dear Natalie,

    We now know that there is no difference between Buro Happold's concerns and my concerns and that is what the minutes of "Technical Meeting 8" show and there is no difference between my concerns and the ASCE expert's concerns and that is what "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions Parts 1 and 2", shows. The only difference is that I have complied with my professional ethical and legal responsibilities in reporting it to others and Buro Happold have not.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I have therefore been deprived of income for almost 10-years for what reason? Because Jackie Baillie and her team disagree with me? Because Buro Happold refused to communicate truthfully? Because the ICE refused to communicate truthfully? On the basis of the evidence that I have seen, all three were wrong to behave as they did and that is very, very disappointing.

    I am waiting for you to get back to me with an outcome that gets me and the others paid and gets me back to work, but I have absolutely no idea what you are waiting-on because the last time you contacted me was months ago. I have requested this is settled at an outcome meeting just about every Friday for the past year, but now that Buro Happold's design checks have been done and if they agree with the design checks that I have done, and it seems certain that they will, then this is now over and the meeting can and should take place now.

    Although you will have become used to reading through my Emails over the years, the days of me being dismissed as some kind of crank are finally over and attention will quickly and inevitably turn to why I have been ignored for so long. The answer to that might be because our MSP's lawyers and engineers have slowly become more and more delinquent over the past 10-years. Not all of them, and I am thinking about Harper MacLeod rather than Beltrami, but a lot of them and so let me know what Mr McAteer intends doing about this, please?


    ReplyDelete
  102. Dear Police Scotland,

    The trailing Email which was sent yesterday evening was deleted from my account at 2.20pm today. Can I request again that this is stopped because it helps no-one and it makes all of us look untrustworthy. Buro Happold and the ICE communicate by Email all over the world and they will be astonished that this is going-on, and going-on continually, within the UK.

    Dear Ms Winfield and ICE,

    I attach trailing my Email to Ms Baillie of 8/1/18 and her response of the same date. This explains the 6-year stasis. It didn't matter how many ASCE expert opinions that I presented to her, Ms Baillie was on a resolute, pre-set course to do nothing and hence nothing could be done. Of course, this is not the way engineering works and I explained this to Ms Baillie many times.

    I attach also the contribution by Ross Thomson MSP that I refer to in my Email to Ms Baillie. His was a good honest effort, as you can see.

    If we leave Police Scotland to enforce "Data Protection" until this matter is concluded, that leaves myself waiting on Mr McAteer and the public waiting on Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers.

    ReplyDelete
  103. George - This is the Email of 8/1/18 that I am talking about above. I think this was sent a few months before you became involved, I seem to remember you got involved in March of that year. It was finally acted upon by Buro Happold last week. This is my understanding of "Misfeasance in Public Office".

    "Dear Jackie,

    I attach an Email sent to me by Ross Thomson in August 2016. It does appear that we are now in a situation where instead of Euan Couperwhite saying there are no structural problems, we have John Swinney saying there are no structural problems. Is this really a satisfactory response from government and would the public not expect more than this? Did any of the 38No respondents say that there were no structural problems and is John Swinney’s, or Euan Couperwhite’s, opinion more important than their opinions?

    What I have asked for in my earlier two Emails is comment on the new information which I have provided. This should be requested by the Client and should be provided by the Contractor and by the named Engineers. They will provide this information free of charge and quickly, but they will only provide it if you ask for it and they will not provide it if you don't ask for it. It is no more than a Contract requirement and is essential in determining where future Design Liability for the school lies. If you require a second opinion on this then consult with Professor Cole, but please act on this request.

    It may be that I have been somehow mistaken but that now looks increasingly unlikely and my fears about this design are now shared by many others and so I would urge you all to view the requirement for a proper investigation with the utmost urgency. We need to make some progress on this and we will not do that by accepting what John Swinney says all of the time. There is now substantial new evidence and we need to start presenting that evidence, questioning it and discussing it; what you are doing at the moment is pretending that it doesn’t exist.

    Please return to me within the next few days to confirm that the information listed 1-3 in my Email of 22nd December 2017 has been requested. Experience shows the necessity for obtaining this information now, as any later investigation will ask why it was not presented sooner".

    ReplyDelete
  104. Dear Police Scotland and Ms Winfield,

    There was another attempted deletion at 20.08. As you can see, this time it was unsuccessful.

    If you are wondering: "Why has nobody checked this before now?", then the Emails trailing at the bottom of this page explain that I asked for these checks be carried-out in January 2018 and I asked again many times since then. Ms Baillie always responds with a flat refusal. The checks were actually carried-out more than 6-years later in March 2014, when Ms Baillie was no longer involved.

    The outcome of this is unpredictable of course, but if you are looking for someone to hold responsible now, before the building deforms, it could be Ms Baillie. If you do nothing and wait for the school to deform, then it could be Buro Happold and I provided my reasons for saying that on Saturday. I am not a lawyer and you are lawyers, but that is the scenario that has always appeared most likely to me.

    It all depends upon the risk of structural deformation of the building due to hydraulic failure of the land and that decision is for Buro Happold.


    ReplyDelete
  105. Dear Police Scotland,

    I received a message from Raghu Prakash this morning to say that "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion - Part 2" has been live on the ASCE/Linkedin website for the past 2-weeks and in that time we have received no new responses. I found that extraordinary because pro-rata we should be expecting to receive a minimum of 2No responses per day.

    Linkedin are sending messages to Raghu saying that a very good impression is given by the posting, but he is seeing no new responses.

    I can only say that in late February/early March when the first opinions were posted-up, there were two determined efforts to remove this document from my computer's memory and I reported that to you at the time. On one occasion, there were 14No attempts made throughout the night before it was finally deleted and I reported that to you at the time.

    Let me say again that the ASCE/Linkedin platform has been used by the ASCE for decades and it is respected all over the world. We in Scotland may never have come across this method of engineering design review before, but we should show the same respect for it that other countries do and allow it to run its course and I am sure that the ICE and Buro Happold would support me on this.

    I think that Police Scotland really ought to get to grips with this situation?


    ReplyDelete
  106. George - The ghosts of Professor Robert Rennie are having an uncomfortable time. I would stop paying these bastards and kick them out at the first opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rennie should enjoy hell, his kind of people are there.

      Delete
  107. Dear Natalie,

    Can I suggest that my meeting takes place on Friday, 29th March?

    I have asked Raghu Prakash to speak to Linkedin about the missing responses to "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion - Part 2". Linkedin's opinion of the posting, which is a good opinion, is derived from the number of responses it is receiving and if Raghu is not getting sight of these responses, and we know he is not, then Linkedin will investigate the reason for that.

    This is now a matter for Police Scotland, the ICE and Buro Happold and I copy-in the Secretary of State for Scotland only because the Scottish Government have so far been so profoundly unaccountable and dishonest. I am anxious to leave this investigation now to those who are being paid to do it and that would be the public expectation too at this point.

    You have the required agenda and so please get back to me today on this.


    ReplyDelete
  108. Dear Natalie,

    I must admit that I am becoming tired of sending you Emails to which you never respond and it is the principal reason this farce has endured for as long as it has. That's eight-years now, which astounds me in view of the complexity of work that I have been left to do that time.

    I asked you to organize a closing meeting for me on Friday and I would ask you again to do that, please. The meeting can either be with Mr McAteer, or with Harper MacLeod and either will be acceptable to me. All four items on the agenda to be answered on Friday, please.

    ReplyDelete
  109. George - "MAY BE YOU ARE RIGHT. LINKED IN SENDING MESSAGES THAT THERE IS GOOD IMPRESSIONS ON THE POST BUT NO COMMENTS. ANYWAY LETS SEE." We use to export engineers and doctors. Respectable exports. Now, and after 25-years of the Scottish Parliament, we export cyber-crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scotland is in decline, you see it everywhere now.

      Delete
  110. Dear Police Scotland,

    "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion - Part 2" was removed from by computer's files again at 4.30am today. I have replaced it already and it is attached with this Email

    The following exchange took place yesterday between myself and Raghu Prakash:

    1. "Has there been no extra responses Raghu? We should have about 30No in 2-weeks? It sounds to me as if they are being deleted? That's what has been happening to me, almost every day."

    2. "MAY BE YOU ARE RIGHT. LINKED IN SENDING MESSAGES THAT THERE IS GOOD IMPRESSIONS ON THE POST BUT NO COMMENTS. ANYWAY LETS SEE."

    If the opinions of international engineering experts are being deleted because they do not align with the Scottish Government's view of the world, then we all in for problems.

    "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion - Part 2" will ensure a proper check is carried-out by Buro Happold and the Institution of Civil Engineers. I have been asking both to do this and they have refused and so I have asked the ASCE experts to do it instead. Is what I am doing in the "public interest?". Clearly it is.

    I am therefore asking for my account and Raghu Prakash's account to be left alone please.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Dear Secretary of State for Scotland,

    I approached you several weeks ago and said that you were responsible for the Devolution Settlement and that if it was not working then you should be informed and that is what I have been doing.

    The trailing Emails are self explanatory and Ross Thomson's Email shows that, with some honesty, Devolution can work in the public interest. Jackie Baillie's Email shows how easy it is to ensure that it doesn't work in the public interest.

    Many years of my life have been wasted due to this misfeasance and I think it is time we all cut to the chase.

    The following is the information that those who use Brimmond School every day are waiting for:

    1. "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion - Part 2", by expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
    2. "As-build design review" of Brimmond School, by Buro Happold.

    Can I urge you to instruct your colleagues at the Scottish Government to release both of these items immediately. I mentioned to the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) a week or so ago that this may be one of the biggest blunders in recent Scottish engineering. Was I right, or wrong?

    Dear Natalie,

    Respond today, please.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Dear Secretary of State for Scotland and Police Scotland,

    I have just had all "sent items" on my Email account deleted up to 29th January 2014 and the trailing copy is from my Universal Credit journal.

    Item 1, "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion - Part 1" AND "Part 2" are attached with this Email. Part 2 was last updated on 8/3/24 but due to the constant deletion of data, such as is going-on just now, it has not been updated since then. It is nevertheless overwhelming as it currently stands.

    The question for Buro Happold, and the Institution of Civil Engineers, is: "Do you agree with these experts?" If the answer to that question is:"Yes we do", then I do not have to explain to the Heads of politics and criminal investigations in Scotland where that leads us to.

    Dear Natalie,

    This investigation is complete and has been handed-over. I wish to meet either Mr McAteer, or Professor Lorne Crerar of Harper MacLeod tomorrow to finalize a settlement for myself and for those who have assisted me. This is the essence of "public law" and so proceed and do that, please.


    ReplyDelete
  113. Dear Natalie,

    I am expecting tomorrow's meeting to go ahead; I just require a time and a location?

    That will leave Buro Happold to propose their own remedial scheme for the school without the intervention of myself, or the ASCE. We only intervened because Buro Happold were refusing.

    The lesson of this tragedy is that Scottish Government parliamentarians, civil-servants and lawyers should keep well away from engineering contracts as they have no idea what they are doing.

    I think that you will find that in the scale of engineering disasters 1-10, this will be a 7 or an 8.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Dear Natalie,

    I asked you to organize a meeting for today between myself and either Mr McAteer, or Professor Crerar of Harper MacLeod and I have heard nothing and that is very disappointing. My livelihood depends upon this and so please respond.

    Dear Ms Winfield,

    You are in a position to confirm whether or not Buro Happold agree with the ASCE experts. If the answer to that question is: "Yes we do agree with them" then this investigation can be ended, now. Do you agree with the ASCE experts?

    Dear Secretary of State for Scotland,

    "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions - Part 2" is live on the ASCE/Linkedin website. Many responses are being received by Linkedin. They should be passed on to Raghu Prakash every day, but he has received nothing for 3-weeks. I have asked Police Scotland to look into this situation, but they are not responding. This matter is of the greatest public concern and so are you able to assist?


    ReplyDelete
  115. George - I posted-up a "list of names" a couple of months ago. You may recall it? "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions - Part 2" is so honest that it should result in some on that list being removed. It is a sign of how delinquent they have all become that this data scares them so much. Could it mean they have to replace the school? In that context, the recent Damehood for Jackie Baillie is astounding, isn't it. What can you say about that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Politicians aren't really setup to handle complex cases, because their workload is so vast, these types of matters should be best served by a public body doing all the heavy lifting. Sadly, it seems many have lost that urge to work.

      Delete
  116. Dear Secretary of State for Scotland,

    At 2.45pm today, all "sent items" from my Email account were deleted up to 5th January. I managed to recover the Email sent this morning, but all of the rest have disappeared. All of this data is however stored in my Universal Credit journal.

    I attach "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion Parts 1 and 2" as this is clearly what is vexing everyone. By strength of professional experience, this easily outweighs anything that can be presented to you by the Institution of Civil Engineers and/or Buro Happold and neither of these two organizations will dispute this information as it is clearly genuine.

    The 10-year investigation is therefore over. All that I am waiting for is my meeting with Mr McAteer, or Professor Crerar. I am pretty sure the terminus to this investigation will shock everyone in the country. Do you think we can honestly say that engineering in Scotland is in safe hands nowadays?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Dear Police Scotland,

    1. I have now lost 22-weeks of data from my internet account iteratively over the past year, but mainly over the past week and I have reported it to you many times. Can you tell me what you are doing to about that, please?

    2. Engineer Raghu Prakash is waiting to receive 3-weeks of expert engineering opinion from the ASCE/Linkedin, via Linkedin and I have asked you to ensure that data is released to him now. Have you done that?

    The Secretary of State for Scotland, the Institution of Civil Engineers and Buro Happold all want to review these opinions as they come in and be given the opportunity to interrogate them and that is the way the ASCE/Linkedin system has worked for decades.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Dear Police Scotland,

    I have been advised to report the under-noted items personally at a Police Station and so can I have an appointment time tomorrow or on Sunday and I will report it at Govan Police Station?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Dear Police Scotland,

    I will visit Govan Police Station at 12.00 mid-day tomorrow (Sunday). Is that OK?

    1. The last time I visited Govan Police Station, which was on 3/9/23, you recommended on 11/9/23 that a proper independent investigation into the safety of Brimmond School ought to be carried-out. That is being carried-out just now by expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, but their opinions have been blocked electronically for the past three weeks and so they are not reaching me. The check, as it stands just now, is attached. You will note that the last response is dated 8/3/24 and we should have an additional 30No or so responses which are being blocked. I copy-in Raghu Prakash, who is an expert member of the ASCE and who has been organizing this independent check for me. I will be asking Police Scotland to release this data because it is in the public interest to do so.

    2. Approximately 22-weeks of my personal Email account data has been deleted mainly over the course of the past week. I will be asking Police Scotland to investigate who has been doing this, under who's instruction and I will be asking for the data to be returned to me.

    Can I speak to officers experienced in Data Protection law?

    Let me know please is you require an alternative time?


    ReplyDelete
  120. Dear Police Scotland,

    I can only attend Govan Police Station at 8.00am tomorrow (Sunday). If I do not hear from you, I will attend then.

    Trailing is Police Scotland's finding of 11/9/23.

    I understand that Mr Gordon Spence is not a qualified engineer and so his judgement should not be relied upon. "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions - Part 2" is by Professors of Engineering, Doctors of Engineering and Fellows of the Institution of Civil Engineers and so we can rely upon them to guide us.

    That is why it is so crucial that myself and Engineer Raghu Prakash are enabled to continue to conclude this document, free from interference by others.

    Whether "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions - Part 2" establishes whether crimes have been committed, and by whom, will be for Police Scotland to determine.



    ReplyDelete
  121. Dear Ms Baillie,

    I will be visiting Police Scotland tomorrow.

    You have perhaps not seen the attachment before, but I sent you Part 1 back in 2017, and many times since then. This is Part 2, which is the update and I produced it because no other checks have been made publicly available since I last visited Police Scotland on 3/11/23.

    I am visiting them again tomorrow to complain that my personal Email records are being deleted and that expert opinions from ASCE members have been stopped for the past 3-weeks. In the past hour I have been prevented from contacting Engineer Raghu Prakash who is the expert member of the ASCE that has assisted me in compiling this document. This, as I am sure you will agree, should not be happening.

    There are two things that I would ask you to do for me:

    1. Pass this document to Ministers in the Scottish Government for their information and necessary action.
    2. Pass it to the school owner, Aberdeen City Council for their information and necessary action.

    Brimmond School has been certified as safe for the past 8-years by Mr Spence at Aberdeen City Council and he believes that it is safe based upon reliance on regular Visual Inspection Reports and the results of Settlement Monitoring. As you can see for yourself, the experts do not agree with him and one of the questions that I will have for tomorrow is whether Mr Spence is qualified to make that judgement. I do not believe that he is. Whether that implies "reckless certification" has taken place is for Police Scotland.

    If I can remind you again of the Shirley McKie case which disgraced the Scottish Parliament 20 or so years ago. That case was solved by opposition constituency MSP Mike Russell with the opinions two American experts Mr Grieve and Mr Wertheim. You have the opinions of approximately fifty American experts and so this case only requires a very small amount of your time and effort and it will be solved too. It could of course have been solved in 2017.

    Dear Natalie,

    Can you ensure that this Email is passed to Engineer Raghu Prakash in KSA for his information.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Dear Ms Baillie,

    I met Mr X at Govan Police Station earlier today. The purpose of the meeting was to explain that I had on 3/9/23 made a complaint to Police Scotland that "Reckless Certification" had been carried-out on Brimmond School in Aberdeen, since 2015, by Aberdeen City Council's Head of Building Standards, Mr George Spence, and this is demonstrated by his Email to me of 15/12/21 trailing.

    Police Scotland investigated and returned to me on 11/9/23 with the finding that there was in fact no evidence that Mr Spence had carried-out the act of "Reckless Certification". I was convinced that he had, but more evidence had to be produced. I accept that these allegations can be made easily enough, but a different criteria has to be met before the Police will act and the purpose my meeting today was to present that evidence.

    I presented three pieces of extra evidence:

    1. Mr Spence is a quantity surveyor, not a civil engineer. He has, for whatever reason, been given authority by Aberdeen City Council and Scottish Building Standards to adjudicate on matters of civil engineering but he is unqualified to do so. The danger of unqualified engineers adjudicating in the field of public safety engineering is explained very, very clearly in ASCE Ethics Case Study 2, from 7.00mins - 8.30mins and this position is supported by UK Law.

    2. The only evidence we currently have from geotechnical experts is from named members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and I sent "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions - Parts 1 and 2 to Mr X earlier today. It is highly unusual, probably unique, to have to re-open such an investigation after more than 6-years but it had to be done in order to break the stasis. As you are aware, all of these experts agree with me and no-one agrees with Mr Spence.

    3. If Mr Spence says that he sees no evidence of subsidence, but 50No experts do see evidence of subsidence, then we accept the opinions of the experts, don't we? Mr Spence doesn't speak as an engineer and so perhaps he has got it wrong?

    The decision on whether this evidence is sufficient will be made by Police Scotland. This is probably the first time that a Building Standards Manager would have to face a charge of "Reckless Certification" but I see it as a train coming down the tracks towards him and I cannot personally foresee any engineer, in the world, supporting him.

    Dear Natalie,

    It looks like my meeting should be with Professor Lorne Crerar of Harper MacLeod? Can you organize that meeting please either on Tuesday 2/4/24, or Wednesday 3/4/24. This has been a failure of Devolution, local government, public bodies, public law and engineering oversight in Scotland. Is it on a par with the Shirley McKie case? I think it is. I do not believe that Professor Crerar is in a position to refuse the meeting and so please do as I ask.

    This past 10-years have been an absolute nightmare for myself and my wife, please accept that.

    Copy this Email to Engineer Prakash in KSA for me please.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Dear Ms Baillie,

    It was pointed-out to me that Mr Spence may be a buildings surveyor instead of a quantity surveyor and indeed that may be so. However, whichever type of surveyor he is, he is not even close to being qualified to adjudicate on this matter. I attach "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions Part 1 and 2" which you have seen many times - each of these engineers is properly qualified.

    Dear Natalie,

    I am expecting to hear from Mr McAteer or Professor Crerar, either by phone or Email, today.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Dear Ms Baillie,

    It sounds as though Natalie is refusing, in which case can you organize the meeting between myself and Harper MacLeod's Professor Lorne Crerar, please?

    I presume that you have passed "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions - Part 2" on to the Scottish Government, Scottish Futures Trust and Aberdeen City Council?

    Dr Stephen Thomas is the UK's foremost expert in this subject, he is known to both the ICE and Buro Happold and he has recently offered to help those at Brimmond School. That is all that I intend doing for you.

    I have asked for the meeting to take place tomorrow and so return to me today with his response, please.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Dear Ms Baillie,

    Can you just organize the meeting for me please?

    ReplyDelete
  126. George - I notice Homeless Project Scotland have had their rent-free stay at Glassford Street extended by a local guy who is the landlord. Well-done to the guy whoever he is. Nothing to do with the Council and that is pretty shameful. 250,000 dinners they have served since they opened, which is remarkable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Homeless Scotland Project is a vital service, I popped into see what they were doing, and grab a bite, far too little is done for the homeless, they lost out to the expense of other people favoured by the political class.

      Delete
  127. Dear Secretary of State for Scotland,

    The following is the final Email from Jackie Baillie MSP, it was received on 2/2/24 and so it describes her position:

    "Dear Mr Dick



    Please refer to my previous email. It is not for me to judge evidence. It is a matter for the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council to establish if there is any fault with the school. I have made representations on your behalf over the years but I have no locus in instructing solicitors – that is a matter for those bodies and they have indicated they will not do so.



    Best wishes



    Jackie"

    I first asked her for Ms Baillie's help in Spring 2016 and since then I have been continually gathering evidence and presenting it to her. Buro Happold and Police Scotland will determine whether the strength of my evidence is now stronger than the strength of evidence presented by George Spence. I think it is, but that decision will be for them and not for Ms Baillie.

    I asked her yesterday to present the latest evidence to the Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council and Scottish Futures Trust and I asked her again to organize the meeting referred to above. Universal Credit are aware that I must have asked her to organize this meeting on more than one-hundred occasions over the past year, but she is determined to do nothing.

    The meeting is crucial for me, and for the few people that have assisted me, in getting paid and it is crucial for me getting back into work. Therefore, can you instruct Ms Baillie to organize the meeting today, please? That is all that I am asking you to do.

    I have no problems whatsoever with either Police Scotland or Buro Happold and my expectation is that they will can carry-out their own investigations and they will be thorough, public-centered and fair. However, I obviously require your assistance with Ms Baillie.

    ReplyDelete
  128. George - Anything I send to Police Scotland or Buro Happold I don't post up here, but from the above you can tell how it stands just now. Harper MacLeod cover the parliamentarians' backs and, in return, they cover Harper MacLeod's back. The public pays for this and that's the way it works. You know this of course. Jackie Baillie though is floating to the top, as you would say. They have been humiliated.

    ReplyDelete
  129. George - Aberdeen schools return after Easter on 12/4/24 and so they will have to make their minds-up on this within the next few days.

    ReplyDelete
  130. George - For years now Jackie Baillie and Jenny Laing at Aberdeen City Council have presented the allusion that no-one agrees with me. In the past few days a set of meeting minutes and a letter from 2014 have been unearthed that prove that Buro Happold agree with me - word for word. So, all of the engineers agree with me. It just shows the value of recording everything and keeping it. You cannot argue with a set of minutes and a letter. I am disappointed in Buro Happold though. They knew that I was right but were prepared to sit on their hands and do nothing and let innocent members of the public suffer. The "force-field" they had protecting all of them has now gone. They will have to chisel the Damehood out of Jackie Baillie's greedy fingers. The school will be fixed and that is the main thing. They have no alternative now.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX,

    I managed to open page 2 of my letter of 5/8/14 and the full letter is attached along with another copy of the minutes of Technical Meeting 8 of 8/7/14. The letter references the actions that were agreed by all at the meeting (and that included Buro Happold) but, for whatever reason, the opposite to what was agreed at the meeting was carried-out.

    The problem is thus explained in these two documents.

    The key passage in the letter is: "The soils exist in distinct bands with established drainage routes through the soil matrix". That means that once you disconnect these drainage routes, all of them as they have done at Brimmond School, it is impossible to reconnect them again and I explain in the letter what inevitably occurs next.

    I am entirely in agreement with Buro Happold and the ASCE experts on this. Hence, all at the Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council and Scottish Futures Trust are wrong. They have been given the authority to make these public interest decisions, but they lack honesty.

    Dear Secretary of State for Scotland,

    I didn't hear from Jackie Baillie MSP yesterday and so she did not set-up my meeting. My experience of Ms Baillie over the years is that she does whatever she likes and so can this be prioritized for today, please?

    I have spent the past 10-years working with great intensity to make sure this madness was seen for what it is and that now needs to be paid for.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Dear Ms Baillie,

    The following is for your information and immediate action.

    The school is due to re-open again at the end of next week and a proper check on its safety should be done before then. Aberdeen City Council are not competent to do it and contractually it can only be done by Buro Happold. It is crucial that it is done quickly and so can you request that instruction is given to Buro Happold by your colleagues at the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council to do that please?

    The engineers that have advised you that this building is safe are Peter Reekie of Scottish Futures Trust and Stephen Garvin of the Scottish Government. Both of these gentlemen are engineers but they are outnumbered approximately 25:1 by named expert engineers. You are not an engineer, but 25:1, in engineering, means that you give way to the experts and that means that all of you give way.

    I regret having to express this situation so bluntly to you, but all of my colleagues in engineering have been working for the past ten-years, I have not been working and that shocks them. I have been waiting and the hold-up has been simply that both yourself and Harper MacLeod refuse to communicate. Your locus to do what I ask is that you are my constituency MSP.

    My impression has always been that this will prove to be one of the great failures of the Devolution era and with every passing week of silence from yourself and Harper MacLeod it looks increasingly inevitable that I will be proven correct. The question that will be asked is: "When did you know about this and what did you do to investigate" and that will be a problem for both of you and so I am asking you, once again, to organize the meeting and do it now, please.


    ReplyDelete
  133. Dear Ms Baillie,

    I am expecting the meeting to take place within the next few days and so pass the following agenda on to Harper MacLeod for me please.

    1. Payment for myself.
    2. Payment for 2No individuals and 2No organizations that have assisted me since 2017.
    3. Replacement job.

    No respectable employer will employ me as a result of the last 10-years and so a job will have to be provided. My preference is for a Head Office based Construction Manager's role in Riyadh KSA, because I have worked there before and I am familiar with that environment.

    This is a "final outcome meeting" and, for it to be a success, the agenda has to be answered by Harper MacLeod and I have to accept their offer and so communication has to take place prior to the meeting date and agreements should, more or less, be in place before we meet.

    I am not interested in who pays for this, I am only interested in getting paid and so liability is not my concern and I will not be questioning that or recording the meeting in any way.

    I trust the above is clear.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Dear Ms Baillie,

    At the stage we are at now, these matters can only be adjudicated by Buro Happold and Harper MacLeod. You are my constituency MSP and so please just respond as I have asked:

    1. Buro Happold

    The School opens again on Friday 12th April and in order to do that it requires a geotechnical design check by an expert. The Council have no-one remotely qualified to do this and we do not want any more "Reckless Certification". I suggested Buro Happold do it for the Council but they will require to be instructed. Please ensure that an instruction is given, by either the Council or by the Scottish Government, to Buro Happold, tomorrow.

    2. Harper MacLeod

    Buro Happold's check will inevitably prove that I am correct and so I am due to be paid for my years of needless unemployment and to be returned to work. The purpose of my second Email to you was to explain what would be acceptable to me. I asked you to pass that on to Harper MacLeod and ensure that an instruction is given for them to meet me within the next few days and so please do that.


    ReplyDelete
  135. Dear Ms Baillie and Ms Winfield,

    A geotechnical check must be provided and it must be made available to members of the public. How you actually do that is for you to decide but, under law, it must be done before 12/4/24.

    If it is not done and the building deforms in the future, then Ms Winfield's team may be held accountable and that is a well known precedent in construction law.

    I am not saying it is Buro Happold's fault but if they have been asked to check and they have not checked properly, then it becomes their fault and that is my understanding of the legal situation.

    All that I am waiting on is my meeting with Harper MacLeod and it is your job to organize that for me and if I am proven correct by Buro Happold, then I am due to be paid.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Dear Ms Winfield,

    If you allow "the impression to be given" that the building is safe but it turns out not to be safe, then it is your team that may be held primarily accountable for that.

    That appears to be the situation we are in just now and so if you can clarify that urgently for Ms Baillie, it means that the school can be fixed and I can be paid and returned to work.

    As I understand it, this information has probably been available for many years and Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government have it, but are refusing to release it.

    However, I think we all need to cut to the chase now.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Dear Secretary of State for Scotland,

    The experts of world engineering agree that Brimmond School contains a defect. Ms Baillie, the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council disagree and, under these circumstances, only Buro Happold are able to adjudicate.

    The problem with the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council adjudicating is that they are not remotely qualified to do so.

    As you can ascertain from the below replies from Ms Baillie she is not interested in pursuing this.

    If Buro Happold agree with the experts, and I think they will, they may recommend that the school is not re-opened on Friday, but that will be for them. The result is therefore crucial and it is required more or less immediately.

    The purpose of my Email today to Ms Winfield is to set-out that she is required to make-up her mind and to make it very, very clear whether this building contains a defect as I have said, or it does not.

    It will then be for Ms Baillie to communicate that to other MSP's as she wishes and to communicate it to the Scottish Government's public law advisors Harper MacLeod so that I, a constituent of hers, can be paid and returned to work.

    The school is due to re-open on Friday and so this matter could not be more urgent.



    ReplyDelete
  138. Kieran,

    Further to our meeting last Sunday, Brimmond School is due to re-open on Friday and so it is crucially important that we clear this matter up before then.

    The point at issue is has the school been "Recklessly Certified" as safe until now and has the "as-built" design been certified by an individual who is not an engineer?

    If you are able to advise Ms Baillie and Ms Winfield on this point, which as I understand it is a point of criminal law and therefore a Police matter, that would be most helpful.


    ReplyDelete
  139. Dear Ms Baillie, Ms Winfield and Secretary of State for Scotland,

    Forgive me for persisting, but I visited Police Scotland last Sunday, which was the start of the school Easter shut-down and, for obvious reasons, the investigation ought to be concluded and action taken within the next day or two. So far I have received no responses and that is disappointing.

    The actions set-out yesterday and earlier today are as follows:

    1. Police Scotland have been asked to determine whether the school has been "Recklessly Certified" by Mr Spence of Aberdeen City Council and Mr Spence's qualifications to adjudicate in this specialist field of engineering will be checked.

    2. I have advised Buro Happold that they cannot allow "the impression to be given" that the building is safe, as they are doing just now, if they do not think it is safe and I have asked them to be very, very clear on their clarification of this.

    3. I have alerted the Secretary of State for Scotland that there is a public law duty on the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council to make Buro Happold's guidance available to those who use this building every day.

    4. I have asked you to arrange a meeting between myself and Harper MacLeod so that I can be paid and returned to work. I have provided the required agenda for the meeting. This is a constituency matter and I have not asked you to attend.

    I would much rather not have to visit Police Scotland. This can be concluded by the three of you now, can't it?

    ReplyDelete
  140. Dear Ms Baillie,

    You have been repeating exactly the same text to me for years and it is getting us nowhere. I am advised by some of the most respected engineers in the world that I am correct. Ergo the school is unsafe. It is due to open again on Thursday or Friday of this week and so please respect the urgency that I and others are attaching to this just now.

    Police Scotland reported on 11/9/23 that there was no evidence of "Reckless Certification" by Mr Spence. If however Mr Spence is not an engineer, then that is all the evidence that is required and it is explained very clearly in ASCE Ethics Case Study 2, from 7.00mins to 8.30mins. What Mr Spence did, and is doing is now with your acceptance, is not permissible. It will lead to a tragedy sooner or later and that is what is meant by "Reckless Certification".

    Police Scotland suggested further independent engineering advice was obtained and that too has been done and it is attached to this Email (without photographs). The position with respect to Police Scotland has therefore changed completely and that is due to the work that I have done over the past 6-months and I explained that in person last Sunday at Govan Police Station..

    I have provided documentary evidence of Buro Happold's position which is contained in the minutes of Technical Meeting 8 (also attached) and so not only do world engineers agree with me, but Buro Happold's engineers agree with me and that of course takes precedence over your opinion, or Mr Spence's opinion. You are no more an expert engineer than he is and so stand aside please and let the experts of Buro Happold take over and guide us from here.

    Harper MacLeod advise the Scottish Government on matters of public law. I reported to them on 13/9/14 that this school would inevitably start to sink if it wasn't checked by geotechnical experts and fixed, but Harper MacLeod failed to take me seriously, did nothing, and now the school is starting to sink. What more can I say?

    There is sure to be a public interest imperative that Harper MacLeod should pay for this and not the tax-payer. However, that is a matter for your colleagues at the Scottish Government. I wish to speak to Harper MacLeod within the next few days to ensure that I am paid for the past years of needless unemployment and that I am returned to work, vindicated. That, as you can imagine, is of the utmost importance to myself and my family just now.

    This is a constituency matter and it is all that I am asking you to do, it is all I am expecting you to do and so please do it and leave the engineering to the experts.


    ReplyDelete
  141. Dear Ms Baillie,

    I asked you to organize a meeting for me with Scottish Government lawyers Harper MacLeod and you failed to do that. Let me explain to you why this meeting is necessary for everyone, not least for yourself:

    As I said yesterday, I reported this case to them on 13/9/14 and asked them to ensure that my concerns were urgently investigated. I received the trailing Email from them on 18/5/15, which confirms they had done absolutely nothing.

    As a consequence the school is now sinking. Can it be stopped? That is for the engineers at Buro Happold to determine and the purpose of yesterday's Email was to explain that Mr Spence at the Council cannot possibly help you.

    Therefore, my suggestion is that Harper MacLeod are held accountable and unless you wish to be held accountable, can I suggest that you just take my advice on this?

    I will attend the meeting on my own and I am asking you to organize it for me. I am therefore expecting to receive a "call to meeting" and an "agenda" from Harper MacLeod later today and so kindly make sure that happens.

    Finally, I presume that we are looking at a closing date for all matters to be resolved by the end of this week?



    ReplyDelete
  142. George - You were indecisive the last time I asked you this question and so I will ask again: Is this the biggest and best example of political misfeasance in the 25-year history of Holyrood?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose the cost of the Scottish Parliament is worth a mention, from £40 million to £440 million for an ugly leaking building.

      Delete
  143. Dear Ms Winfield,

    Your letter alludes to Buro Happold having little or no engagement in this matter, but it is your design and any change to that design which, in this case was a construction error, can only be adjudicated on by Buro Happold. Not by anyone else.

    I have referred to minutes of Technical Meeting 8 of 8/7/14, which is an agreed record of what was presented and what was said by your team at that meeting. My subsequent letter to Ogilvie Construction explains the same very grave concerns that your engineers expressed at the meeting. (Both of these documents are attached. Please read them).

    Let me refer again to ASCE Ethics Case Study 2: "The safety of the public comes before an engineer's own career". That is a very tough situation to find oneself in, but that is where I have been for the past 10-years. As I say above, Buro Happold's job is now to adjudicate and I presume that your client will instruct you to do that and do it now.

    I would presume that your adjudication is required, by all of the other parties that are involved, immediately?

    Dear Ms Baillie,

    Attached is the letter you sent to Ms Jenny Laing of Aberdeen City Council on 2/8/18 and her reply which was sent to you 6-months later on 25/1/19. Both letters are self-explanatory and not a single point made by you in your letter has been answered, either by yourself or by the Council and that is the locus of this tragedy which is now engulfing everyone?

    If I can return to the case in point here: The roles of engineers, lawyers and parliamentarians are the same and the public interest comes first. Harper MacLeod's Email of 18/5/15 set in train a series of entirely needless outcomes for myself and for Brimmond School. Either Harper MacLeod are responsible, in which case the meeting is required, or yourself and Ms Laing are responsible.

    My advice to you is to arrange the meeting between myself and Harper MacLeod and to do it now.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Dear Ms Baillie,

    We are currently waiting on those at Buro Happold making their decision. Although if I am wrong, then many of the world's most distinguished engineers must be wrong too and that would be remarkable, wouldn't it.

    ReplyDelete
  145. George - A few years ago they used to wheel out the superlatively grotesque Professor Robert Rennie who tell street urchins like us to fuck-off back to our tenements. Too many are watching this just now and so that won't work. This may turn out to be a good result for you too.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Dear Ms Winfield,

    Allow me to clarify one point for you:

    I have stated that your team of engineers may be held accountable for any future structural deformation of Brimmond School. I stated that because you are the designer and data such as Factors of Safety and soil data are known only to Buro Happold. The other engineers that provided opinion in 2018 are unaware of this and so they cannot check your design.

    Similarly, the 50No or so experts from the ASCE can give their opinions, and they have done that, but they cannot check your design and only your team of engineers can do that. Therefore, If an accident occurs and Buro Happold say: "Our client refused to allow us to divulge this information", that will clearly not save you from public opprobrium and I doubt if it would save you from Court proceedings either.

    I referred to ASCE Ethics Case Study 2 yesterday, but the above point of construction law is from ASCE Ethics Case Study 4 and that explains that the contractor may change your design, but you are responsible for checking the change. The Inquiry into that collapse ended the careers of the two engineers, Jack Gillum and Dan Duncan, who were held personally responsible for failing to properly check the contractor's change to their design.

    Buro Happold are now in a similar position and the principal difference is that a deformation hasn't occurred yet. That is the point that I have been making for the past 10-years and it is disappointing that it continually escapes you. I am aware of it, my experience has been that most other engineers are aware of it and Ogilvie Construction will be aware of it too and it is the premise that governs Building Standards in Scotland.

    Where would we all be without myself and the ASCE? Between the two of us, we seem to have had to explain everything.

    Dear Ms Baillie,

    Time has now run-out. The message that I was trying to convey yesterday was that an over-reliance on lawyers is helping no-one and half an hour later I received a letter from another lawyer. I await your advice regarding my meeting with Harper MacLeod. As you know, I have asked for that meeting to take place on or before Friday and that means that the "call to meeting" and the agenda should be delivered to me, today.


    ReplyDelete
  147. George - We should be at the end now. Regarding your comment about the cost of Holyrood - how much do you think it would cost and how long do you think it would take to finish if Jackie Baillie and Shona Robison were in charge? Also, regarding Homeless Project Scotland - at Sunday's Old Firm match we saw Gordon Ramsay and Martin Compson supporting their respective teams and drinking in Glasgow pubs to give the allusion that they are one of us. The chap who provides for Homeless Project Scotland is someone who realizes that but for the grace of God, any of us could be sleeping on a mattress on the floor at Glassford Street and so whoever the guy is, he deserves the utmost credit for what he is doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shona Robison is a political dunce even her own spad didn't like it when she spoke as she never learns her brief well. I have met Jackie Baillie a few times campaigning, she is certainly a lot better than Robison. As to people sleeping rough, they say about 1 in 4 in the UK have less than £100 in the bank, 11.5 million people.

      Delete
  148. George - Scotland used to be the home of engineering. I am waiting on lawyers (Professor Rennie's old team) and everyone else is waiting on lawyers too. One day to go before the school opens. We all know what the result is going to be. Isn't this tragic?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Dear Ms Winfield and Ms Baillie,

    Time is marching-on. Can I suggest a route-map that will get this finished by the end of the week?:

    1. (Today/Wednesday) Buro Happold to be instructed by their Client, Aberdeen City Council/ Hub North Scotland, to provide the as-built design review that everyone is asking for.

    2. (Tomorrow/Thursday) The as-built design review to be reviewed by Scottish Building Standards and Scottish Government Ministers and a decision made as to whether the school is safe to re-open.

    3. (Friday) My meeting to go-ahead with Harper MacLeod.

    As I see it, it is unlikely that Buro Happold's engineers will disagree with any of the guidance that myself and the ASCE engineers have provided you with over the years. But, we shall see. The important thing to keep in mind is that the Scottish Government can say the school is safe, only if Buro Happold say it is safe.

    I think that my days of living off Universal Credit should be coming to an end. On Friday.


    ReplyDelete
  150. Dear Ms Winfield,

    I do not know whether you submitted your as-built review yesterday in accordance with the route-map?

    I attach "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussions - Parts 1 and 2" for you to review this morning. You have not disclosed your findings of 2018 to me, but I will disclose my findings of 2017 and 2024 to you and some very grave concerns are being expressed here.

    Dear Ms Baillie,

    The safety of any building is assessed by the weighing of evidence and if Buro Happold failed to issue their information yesterday, then present my evidence and ask them (the Scottish Government/Scottish Building Standards) to make their judgement based upon that.

    My evidence "should" be impossible to ignore. If Buro Happold are ignoring it, then my advice to you would be to hand it to the Press because as soon as the building cracks, it will be blamed on someone and for the reasons I explained yesterday, that may well be Buro Happold.

    From your personal standpoint, my advice to you is to make sure that all the questions you asked in your letter of 2/8/18 (attached again) are answered. You asked the questions and it is for you to have them answered and it is not for me to spend all of my time, year after year, doing that for you while you do nothing.

    On the evidence that I have seen, I would blame this on Harper MacLeod's Bruce Caldow for his Email of 18/5/15 trailing and if you do not do that now and if you wait for the building to crack first, then the situation changes entirely. However, that is for you.

    I have asked you to arrange a final closing meeting tomorrow with Harper MacLeod and I am currently waiting for you to do that. I would leave everything to Harper MacLeod now.



    ReplyDelete
  151. Dear Ms Baillie,

    Sent half an hour ago. My information exceeds your server capacity and so I have omitted it. I have attached your letter of 2/8/18 which I would guess is now fairly crucial. This is mainly for your action now and all that I am expecting from you is tomorrow's meeting to be organized.

    ReplyDelete
  152. George - It all now lies in the hands of Jackie Baillie and Professor Crerar and his team of middle-aged women. Is it the Glasgow University team? I don't know, but I suspect it might be.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Dear Ms Baillie,

    The MSP's that really ought to see "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion - Part 2" are constituency MSP's Liam Kerr and Jackie Dunbar? I haven't contacted either since early January and so, with the school due to open again tomorrow, they really ought to see this today? Can you send it to them please?

    What I would encourage them to do is insist that Buro Happold respond and if Buro Happold refuse to confirm that the school is safe, then it is not safe and I am pretty sure that is the situation that will transpire shortly.

    I have asked for tomorrow's meeting to be conclusive and that means that I wish to recover all of my financial losses, to have the few people that have assisted me paid and to return to work immediately and that reflects the outcome I have been asking for consistently for the past 10-years.

    I am copying this to Universal Credit as it reflects the situation that I have been reporting to them. They are interested in getting me back into work and my suggestion is that you leave that with Harper MacLeod to sort-out with me tomorrow? When they make a mess, they need to clear it up and maybe they need to be told that?

    I still haven't received a call to meeting from them, by the way.


    ReplyDelete
  154. Dear Ms Baillie,

    Forgive me but I am trying to get this finished as quickly as possible and get back to work and so bear with me, please.

    My understanding of your duties is that you communicate on my behalf and that is all I am asking you to do. Should Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar be given this information today? Yes, they should and so I intend leaving that with you and you can elect to do as you wish.

    Those who will decide whether the school is safe will be Buro Happold and that's the way engineering works. Will they deem the school safe? No, they won't. Will fixing the school be expensive? According to the last opinion, which was from the UK's foremost expert, yes it will be.

    Should the school re-open tomorrow? That is a question that only Buro Happold can answer, but I suspect they will say, "No".

    Harper MacLeod are employed to advise the Scottish Government on matters of public law and my point is that they have made a right mess of this and anyone can see that and your role, as a constituency MSP, is to represent me against them, not them against me.

    Someone has to pay me and someone has to pay to fix the school. That fairly complex scenario has unfolded due to this new information. So, I think that you should organize tomorrow's meeting now and hand the information on to the constituency MSP's for their review as I have asked.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Dear Ms Baillie,

    What a waste of 10-years of anyone's life this has been. I copy-in Buro Happold so that they are aware of this correspondence.

    I tried sending "Aberdeen School Project Comments and Discussion - Part 2", to Ms Dunbar MSP and Mr Kerr MSP a short time ago and their addresses have been blocked electronically. I do not know if that is legal or illegal but it is certainly unhelpful.

    This information is for them and I have sent it via yourself, which is the correct protocol, and so I would again urge you to pass it on to them. Mr Kerr is I believe a lawyer and so he ought to have free access to this data.

    The most pertinent point the experts make is that visual inspection reports and settlement monitoring are not acceptable as a form of monitoring the building. The Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council have accepted it, but the engineering profession does not agree with you. The expert who provided this guidance this isn't a parliamentarian or a lawyer, he is a Professor of Engineering.

    Essentially the school design, and that includes the 5m deep clay-filled contamination trench, must be accepted as a stable design by the designer Buro Happold and the chances of Buro Happold doing that are close to zero. How many times do I have to repeat this?

    Therefore, if the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council continue to operate the school, after tomorrow, the Council may be in breach of the law in which case your attitude to alerting others at the Scottish Government sounds extraordinarily remiss to me.

    Can I suggest that Ms Winfield responds and if what I set-out above is correct, then I am correct and ergo Harper MacLeod are deserving of serious censure by the Scottish Government for failing to take this seriously in 2014, when it could have been easily rectified.

    If I am correct then the Brimmond School dam will finally have burst. How ironic that it should happen on the day it was due to re-open. It sounds like the Edinburgh Schools fiasco all over again.


    ReplyDelete
  156. George - My next door neighbor used to be a lecturer in politics at Glasgow University. He knows them all, including the political journalists. Number one dummy in his opinion was, as you say, Shona Robison. There is a force field surrounding them nonetheless - Robison, Constance, Slater, McAllan, McKelvie, Gilruth and all the rest of them. They've created a vacuum at Holyrood where they convince themselves, and many of us, that they are right and everyone else is wrong. He told me a fascinating story about Baillie by the way and I'll repeat it to you in person when this is all over and that should be soon.

    ReplyDelete
  157. They are a university clique mostly which I think explains the vacuum, it doesn't also help the SNP is run under the principle of cult of personality, developed from the Salmond era. I look forward to your Jackie Baillie story.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Dear Ms Winfield,

    I understand that Brimmond School re-opened for a staff "in-service" day on Friday and will re-open for staff and pupils from Monday 15th April. Who will be held responsible for "causing" any building failure that occurs from Monday onwards? That remains the vexed question.

    I believe that Buro Happold will be held responsible and you disagree. You are Buro Happold's lawyer and ASCE Case Study 4 is from the ASCE's lawyer. The two cases are analogous and so the legal opinions should be the same, but they are different. Are the ASCE correct, or are you correct?

    Can I ask that you respond to this question directly to Mr Liam Kerr MSP and Ms Jackie Dunbar MSP? The school is relied upon every day by their constituents and so they will take your legal opinion very, very seriously when it arrives.

    Dear Ms Baillie,

    Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar's addresses remain electronically blocked, as is my communication with Engineer Prakash in KSA and his communication with the ASCE/Linkedin. Many responses from ASCE experts have been submitted over the past 4-weeks and ASCE/Linkedin have told us that, but Engineer Prakash is not receiving them and so I am not receiving them either.

    Depending upon Ms Winfield's response to Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar, it could be argued that these blocks are putting the lives of members of the public at risk. Can I again request they are lifted and that this Email is sent by you to your colleagues Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar and that is done, now.

    Mr Kerr, for example, may decide that these matters deserving of intervention by Police Scotland and that will be a decision for him, rather than for you and reading through this trailing Email will allow him to come his own determination on that, before Monday.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Dear Ms Baillie,

    The safety of the building is now in the hands of Ms Winfield and she will engage and communicate with all of the other parties that are involved. That may include constituency MSP's Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar, but that decision is entirely for her.

    I attach another copy of your letter of 2/8/18 to Aberdeen City Council and their response of 25/1/19. If Buro Happold's advice confirms that I was entirely correct and should have been taken seriously, and I expect them to do that, then all of my costs should be repaid to me and I should be returned to work, immediately.

    This is a constituency matter. Please confirm your agreement to work with, and communicate with, Ms Winfield and myself in order to achieve that by return Email.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Dear Ms Winfield,

    While I wait on Ms Baillie responding, can I refer you to ASCE Ethics Case Study 4, 7.30mins to 11.15mins because that clearly explains the legal obligations upon your team at the moment with respect to Brimmond School.

    The quickest way to settle upon how serious the problem is would be for your team of engineers to review Ms Baillie's letter of 2/8/18 and I attach another copy with this Email.

    This letter should really have been answered at the time by Buro Happold, rather than the Council Co-Leader and I suspect that may be the locus of the problem? Councillor Laing was clearly not an engineer and neither was her Head of Building Standards and hence the problem.

    Does your team agree, point for point, with the five points made in the letter? Many ASCE engineers have checked it already of course and it is now for your team to check and I presume that you will agree to do that straight away?


    ReplyDelete
  161. George - I think a different strategy is required for Jackie Baillie. The present dialogue has made life unbearable for Buro Happold and Harper MacLeod as they know I am right and ergo they are wrong.

    I am dozens of cruise missiles, drones and all the rest of it to be fired at Israel from Iran later today and that is real geo-politics. Jackie Baillie takes 10-years to answer the question: "Is this primary school safe?"

    Is it not hard to see this as anything other than a total failure.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Dear Ms Baillie and Ms Winfield,

    A general point for both of you: engineering is run far better by engineers than it is by parliamentarians and lawyers.

    Dear Ms Baillie,

    This information was produced for Mr Kerr and Ms Dunbar and not for you. Once they have read it they may wish to contact the ASCE experts, or they may wish to contact Buro Happold in order to understand if the building is safe to occupy tomorrow and that is the only point I make.

    Dear Ms Winfield,

    All that the MSP's are waiting on from Buro Happold are your responses to the five points on Ms Baillie's letter of 2/8/18 (attached again). Once the MSP's have that, and the latest ASCE expert comments referred to above, this investigation can be concluded.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Dear Ms Winfield,

    The ASCE's Ethical Code is as follows:

    1. Society: Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity of the engineering profession by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment.
    2. Natural and Built Environment: Engineers are honest, impartial, and serve with fidelity the public, their employers, and clients.
    3. Profession: The code emphasizes the importance of maintaining the highest standards of professional conduct.
    4. Clients and Employers: Engineers prioritize the interests of their clients and employers while ensuring public safety and welfare.
    5. Peers: The code encourages respectful and ethical interactions among fellow engineers.

    Supporting me, as the other ASCE members have freely elected to do over the years, puts your firm in compliance with the Code and refusing to support me puts them in breach of just about all of it. Are you aware of that?

    I sent Minutes of Technical Meeting 8 to Mr Kerr yesterday and it shows that your firm were more concerned than I was about the contractor's careless approach to the earthworks at Brimmond School. I tried to contain that carelessness and was dismissed from my job for doing that. Buro Happold provided no support to me at the time, and are still providing no support to me 10-years later, and that is incredibly disappointing.

    Dear Mr Kerr,

    The key to concluding this case lies with item 3 below, the Email of 14/6/19 by Dr Stephen Garvin of Scottish Building Standards. The team at Aberdeen City Council/Hub really have no idea what they are doing.

    Dear Ms Baillie,

    I have made suggestions to the SPSO and to Universal Credit in recent days that will bring this nightmare to an end for myself and my family and, for any of these suggestions to work, you require to act. Are you willing to do that?

    ReplyDelete
  164. George - There has been so much stuff sent these past few days that I missed you out. Most of it is repetitive and you know that better than anyone. Interestingly though, I contacted Douglas Ross and he responded straight away. What does that tell you? Some time ago you responded and said that this case was really about ethics and so there you have it set-out above. I will keep you copied-in to anything important.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Conservatives maybe more useful that Labour, I don't understand why when presented with an open goal, they are so slow to take this up and run with it.

      Delete
    2. Because it was the council's fault, they ignored the advice at the time and the council during 2014, were run by Labour. Think of it that way and it all makes sense, doesn't it.

      Delete
  165. George - Liam Kerr was electronically blocked and so I contacted Douglas Ross instead and he got back to me within hours. Once Buro Happold stop supporting Jackie Baillie then it is over and if you take a look at the above Email, I expect their support to end abruptly, about now.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Dear Ms Baillie, Mr Kerr and Ms Winfield,

    I attach the last job offer I received and it was Saudi Arabian Parsons who are a reputable firm of engineers. The salary is itemized and it is clearly a very high salary, but that is what engineers earn and that is what I will be expecting to recover.

    As with all of the information I have submitted over the years, this is genuine and from the perspective that time is money, this is as clear an example as you will find and I would ask all of you to get into that way of thinking.

    I presume that Mr Kerr and Ms Winfield are handling matters relating to the building and the land and Ms Baillie is handling the above situation for me?

    ReplyDelete
  167. My brother when working gets around £23 per hour as a joiner, and he is pretty good with around 35 years experience.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Everyone needs to work and if Jackie Baillie's political vested interests kept your brother from working he would be pretty angry about it. I won' tell you the figure here, but Ms Baillie and the others will have worked it out.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Dear Ms Baillie,

    The information from Saudi Arabian Parsons, sent yesterday demonstrates the quantum of my losses. They are unsustainable and that is why I send Emails to you every day. It is because I am expecting action from you and I am waiting for something to be done.

    Each month of delay costs me in excess of £12,000. Sadly, it isn't months of delay, it is years of delay and I am at the point of having to arrange "Equity Release" on my family home and that is something that I clearly shouldn't have to do. That explains the current crisis for you.

    Bob Matheson was the Head of Advocacy at "Protect" and his first advice to me in 2018 was that Harper MacLeod and Ogilvie Construction ought to be paying for this and his advice along with the ASCE's advice, has always been sound and reliable over the years.

    Harper MacLeod do not want to meet me because that will cost them money and so they refuse and that costs me money instead, but should you be accepting that? It doesn't take much of a step into the unknown to imagine what the public would expect you to do just now.

    The investigation is over, I have been proven correct and I now wish to be paid and returned to work. It is helpful to put an actual figure on the losses accrued to date and they are staggering, multiples of what was accrued by anyone in "Mr Bates versus the Post Office".

    So, can I ask again that my meeting is scheduled with the Principles of Harper MacLeod and that is done today, please.


    ReplyDelete
  170. What we have is myself, Saudi Arabian Parsons, Buro Happold and the American Society of Civil Engineers all being held-up by Jackie Baillie and wee George Spence from Aberdeen City Council.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Dear Ms Baillie,

    Has instruction been given to Harper MacLeod to meet me? The required agenda is as follows:

    1. Payment for myself.
    2. Payment for 2No professional bodies and 2No private individuals who have assisted the investigation.
    3. Replacement job.

    I explained my present situation yesterday in terms that were clear to all and so please respond today. This action is with you.

    Dear Mr Kerr,

    The minutes of Technical meeting 8 of 8/7/14 and the letter to Ogilvie Construction of 5/8/14 (attached again with this Email) are where this all started and the voluminous correspondence sent over the course of the past 10-years has been little more than a repetition of what is said here. Therefore, there is no difference between my position and Buro Happold's position on this.

    Dear Ms Winfield,

    The attachments are for your attention too. This is a dispute about a change to Buro Happold's engineering design, you are aware of the change and so it is time for you to take-over from me and start doing your job. Let me say that the lack of support that I have received from yourself and Mr Mallett over the years has been the greatest of all disappointments to me.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Dear Ms Baillie,

    I have already set this out many times, but allow me to do so again:

    1. Hugh Mallett, Technical Director of Buro Happold, will confirm whether or not he agrees with the minutes of Technical Meeting 8 of 8/7/14 and my letter to Ogilvie Construction of 5/8/14. Since he wrote a very large section of the minutes himself, and the letter reflects what was said in the minutes, it is inevitable that he will agree.

    2. That establishes that Mr John Swinney's letter of 27/12/17 (copy attached), where he states that Buro Happold disagree with me, is untrue. This letter set in train a series of negative outcomes and I have explained those to you in recent days and so Mr Swinney's employer, the Scottish Government, are thus responsible for all of my losses.

    3. Mr Swinney's letter is signed and so I have asked you to arrange a meeting between myself and the Principals of Harper MacLeod as they are the Scottish Government's advisors on matters of public law and I wish to meet them within the early part of this week to agree a settlement and a return to work.

    This is a constituency matter that only you can arrange and so please do that and return to me today.


    ReplyDelete
  173. Dear Ms Baillie,

    I attach Mr John Swinney's signed letter again with this Email. I have provided evidence, from Buro Happold themselves, that this letter is untrue and I have asked Buro Happold to confirm that for us.

    From the Code of Conduct of MSP's: "An MSP must take on a constituent’s case when approached, unless they have a legitimate reason for declining it".

    Return to me after you have arranged the Harper MacLeod meeting, or advise me the reason why you are refusing to do so. I have provided evidence that my losses are great and so this must be resolved, now.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Dear Ms Baillie,

    We all know the Scottish Government denies there is a problem but, mercifully, that decision is for Buro Happold and it looks certain they will disagree.

    I asked you to organize a meeting for me with Harper MacLeod and so please do that and have them instructed to send me a "call to meeting" and an "agenda".

    I explained some time ago that it is the ethical duty of any engineer to put the safety of the public before their own career development and I have done that. It is a two-way street of course and it is for the three of you to each play your part too.

    Return to me with confirmation of the meeting, please.

    Thank you,

    S. Dick

    ReplyDelete
  175. Dear All,

    Neither of you are engineers. This is now an investigation of the utmost gravity and the recently submitted expert opinions make that very clear. Allow me to set-out the situation pertaining to all three of you as follows:

    1. Dear Ms Baillie,

    From the Code of Conduct of MSP's: "An MSP must take on a constituent’s case when approached, unless they have a legitimate reason for declining it". These unexplained refusals amount to misfeasance and are analogous to what was seen during "Mr Bates versus the Post Office". Please provide a legitimate reason for your refusal by return Email.

    2. Dear Mr Kerr,

    The Scottish Government's Cole Inquiry of 2017 and the recent expert opinions by ASCE members dismissed the reliance upon visual inspection reports and settlement monitoring by the Scottish Government/Aberdeen City Council/Hub. You have authority to request to be given the proper Buro Happold as-built design review of Brimmond School and so please do that today.

    3. Dear Ms Winfield,

    There is an expectation that Buro Happold will communicate and by refusing to do that you put your firm on exactly the same course that Jack Gillum and Dan Duncan found themselves on during the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981 proceedings. If Buro Happold agree with myself and not with Ms Baillie, then please explain that to Mr Kerr so that he can take the appropriate steps.

    I am expecting to meet the Principals of Harper MacLeod, within the early part of this week and I have asked Ms Baillie to arrange the meeting urgently with her colleagues at the Scottish Government.


    ReplyDelete
  176. Dear Mr Hewlett,

    I refer to the complaints of "Misfeasance in Public Office" which have been made against the above 3No individuals. I have copied the weekend's correspondence with Ms Baillie to you and you can see for yourself her dogged refusal to act. It is never-ending.

    I have provided evidence that this investigation is costing me a large sum of money each monthly, it has gone on interminably and, with Ms Baillie involved, it is clearly not going to be resolved. I am surprised that I have been able to sustain it for this long, but I cannot sustain this situation any longer.

    As I explained at the weekend, it is my professional responsibility to put the safety of the public before my own career and I have done that. I am now handing over to Mr Kerr and Ms Winfield and I set-out to them what I see as their respective professional responsibilities earlier this morning.

    Ms Winfield's team at Buro Happold will adjudicate upon whether the building and the land are safe and Mr Kerr and his team will determine whether the school can remain open.

    It appears to me that the locus of this situation is in the attached two letters. The first from Ms Baillie to Ms Laing of 2/8/18 and Ms Laing's reply of 25/1/19. The safety of a complex geotechnical design change is not determined by Ms Laing's opinion and Ms Baillie's acceptance of that opinion. Sadly though, that is what has happened here.

    The allusion which is made throughout Ms Laing's reply that I am a trouble-maker is really pretty loathsome, especially so if it has now been proven that I was correct to make my concerns known and that they are real "life safety" concerns.

    I therefore think it would be best for all concerned if Ms Baillie is removed from taking any further part in this investigation until Ms Winfield concludes with Mr Kerr. That seems the obvious solution to restore some degree of professional order to the situation.

    In the context of Harper MacLeod being the Scottish Government's advisors on matters of public law, I presume that they also come under the auspices of the SPSO. You will no doubt be aware that I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to arrange a meeting with them for the past year and Ms Baillie's refusal to do that is costing me a very large sum of money.

    Are the SPSO able to assist me in organizing this meeting which requires ministerial approval? Ms Baillie, for her own reasons, is clearly not interested in doing that, but it needs to be done rather urgently in order to end my involvement in this case.




    ReplyDelete
  177. George - Either Swinney, Baillie or Harper MacLeod will be blamed. All three are guilty of course but they will blame only one of them. I have tried to help Jackie Baillie over the years, but it is hopeless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. opposition MSPs can't really change anything as they don't hold the reins of power, the best they can do is bring this to parliament and flag it up. another sad aspect of life, politics is a 24/7 media circus so they move on when the next story comes along, hence detailed analysis is practically nil unless it is something of a special interest concern.

      Delete
    2. Mike Russell was an opposition MSP during the Shirley McKie case - that didn't stop him. He had 2No American experts, Jackie Baillie has 55No.

      When I stepped forward to say "this will never work" back in 2014, I wasn't stepping forward as a politician, I was doing it as an engineer.

      I have since become sucked into the vortex of Jackie Baillie and Anas Sarwar's putrid political fandango.

      "Hi Jackie,

      Thanks again for your help on this.

      I have to say, I find their response incredibly disappointing.

      Centrally, they have not engaged at all with the point put forward in your letter about visual inspections being completely inadequate in this situation. This is not just the view of Stephen, this is (or should be) the view of all those working for the Scottish Government (through the Cole report, which they commissioned). Even non-Engineers can grasp this point, and so the complete absence of a response to it can only mean an intent to ignore the problem in my opinion. If this is the case then that is pretty shameful.

      There is much else to bemoan about the letter too (6 month[!] delay; no answers to the questions put forward in pts.2-4; no acknowledgement of the ASCE comments; and a completely inappropriate tone taken to whistleblowing, through the troublemaking allusions made about Stephen). I know that Stephen will also have many more technical objections.

      I wonder, though, whether the visual inspection point is the clearest line of interrogation for the meantime?

      What do you think the best way to proceed with this is? A question in Parliament? A meeting with yourself, the council, and Stephen?

      When you do nothing, as Jackie Baillie has done, all you do is take the weight of responsibility on to your own shoulders. I do not know how many times I have repeated that, but it makes no difference."

      Delete
  178. Here's the letter again George. The question is - should this letter have been answered by an expert engineer, or by Councillor Jenny Laing? Looks like a cover-up to you? It looks like a cover-up to me:

    Cllr Jenny Laing
    Co-Leader
    Aberdeen City Council
    Town House
    Broad Street
    Aberdeeen
    AB10 1FY

    Our Ref: JB15209
    02 August 2018

    Dear Jenny,

    Brimmond School

    I write in response to your letter of 19th July 2018 regarding the safety of Brimmond School in Aberdeen.

    As you know, the construction of Brimmond School has been questioned by one of my constituents who claims that the design was changed to incorporate a deep contamination excavation which ran the full width of the site from north to south. The effect of this was to re-set the pattern of ground-water flowing through the site and he claims that this will cause ‘soil collapse’ and ‘subsidence’ to occur. These effects can happen slowly, or very quickly and so, if my constituent is correct, it follows that a risk of partial collapse may have been inadvertently built-in to this building and it should be investigated and remedied quickly.

    During the course of the past 2-years I am aware that my constituent has presented a range of evidence in support of his concerns, but on each occasion he has been told: ‘We’ve had the school checked by a qualified engineer there is no subsidence’. My constituent has nevertheless continued with his investigations and in September 2017 he consulted expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the clear majority of whom agreed with my constituent’s hypothesis. Still nothing has changed and, by virtue of your letter, my constituent has been told again ‘We’ve had the school checked by a qualified engineer there is no subsidence’.

    It does seem that no matter how strong his evidence may be, he will always receive the same reply, whether from the local authority or indeed the Scottish Government. It would therefore seem sensible at this point to take a step back and investigate the strength of the survey, which is a visual survey, by Peter Fraser of Ramsay and Chalmers Consulting Structural Engineers to establish if it would provide robust evidence to protect the owner of the building against claims of negligence, should an accident occur at the school due to defects identified by my constituent, and not acted upon by Aberdeen City Council:

    1. The Cole Enquiry 2017
    The last failure of a school building took place in 2016 at Oxgangs Primary School in Edinburgh. That led to an investigation into the safety of all recently built schools in that city. 17 of these schools were forced to close until repairs were carried-out as they were considered to be ‘unsafe’. It was found that, upon initial completion and hand-over to Edinburgh City Council, all of these schools were given similar visual surveys by structural engineers saying that the buildings appeared to be correct and that there was nothing of any concern. Professor Cole’s response to that was to recommend that owners should discontinue using these visual surveys. So, since the Cole Enquiry of February 2017, all building owners, and especially school building owners, should no longer be relying upon visual surveys of the type issued by Ramsay and Chalmers to prove the adequacy of design and construction.

    ReplyDelete
  179. 2. The SER Certification Scheme
    This is the building control design review system, managed by the Institution of Structural Engineers, which now operates in Scotland. A 2-storey school building on a brownfield site would require to be design checked by an independent engineering team. Any amendment to that design would require another design check by an independent engineering team. Has this been done?
    SER do not recognize visual surveys, even for the simplest private buildings. Why, therefore, is this survey being presented as proof of the adequacy of the design and construction on a large public building?

    3. Eurocode 7
    The ‘ultimate limit state’ ‘GEO’, which is ‘excessive deformation of the ground’ was reached soon after the building was opened. This requires an immediate investigation by a geotechnical specialist in order to determine the cause of the failure and to determine what measures have to be put in place to prevent further deterioration. Has this been done?
    A Principal ‘P’ requirement of Eurocode 7 is that no standing groundwater is visible around the apron of a building as it can lead to a rapid degradation of the building’s foundations. Standing groundwater is visible around the apron of this building during each winter and the building will not stand up to this indefinitely. What is the Council’s response to this?

    4. Fairhurst’s Soil Investigation Report 83263
    This states in the Executive Summary that: ‘The presence of shallow and potentially upwelling groundwater on the site reduces the allowable bearing capacity to <75kN/m-2 and, with this present, they will not be appropriate as a founding strata’. Photographs of the site in winter show that we do have shallow and upwelling water present. Thus, the actual available strength of the soil is less than 50% of that required to safely support the weight of the building. What do the Council propose to do to remedy this?

    5. Ramsay and Chalmers Visual Report/Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments (14)
    We can compare the Ramsay and Chalmers visual report issued in September 2016, with Aberdeen School Project Discussion and Comments (14) issued in October 2017. I note that Peter Fraser is not a geotechnical specialist, the 37 members of the ASCE are geotechnical specialists; Peter Fraser cannot see any subsidence, the members of the ASCE can see subsidence and many of them are not optimistic about the future prospects for this building. Is there not a very clear conflict of opinion here which should be investigated by the Council?

    In conclusion, I would suggest to you that the Ramsay and Chalmers visual report is at odds with the views expressed by many others who are specialists in the field; it fails to comply with the requirements of the SER Certification Scheme and the Council’s reliance on such a report fails to acknowledge the recommendations of the Cole Enquiry Report. Further, the failure to comply with the design recommendations provided in Fairhurst’s Soil Investigation Report and to investigate an apparent ultimate limit state failure as described in Eurocode 7 raise concerns about the future safety of the building.

    For peace of mind and for the safety of this and future generations of school children, I would be grateful if you would consider initiating an independent investigation of the site.
    Yours sincerely,

    Jackie Baillie MSP
    Dumbarton Constituency

    ReplyDelete
  180. Dear Mr Hewlett, Mr Kerr and Ms Baillie,

    The below Emails were removed from my record of sent Emails at approximately 9.00am this morning, along with all other sent Emails up to 14th April and these copies were recovered from my Universal Credit journal, which is the only protected data storage available for matters relating to Brimmond School.

    There is no suggestion that either Buro Happold or the Secretary of State for Scotland are involved, but I copy this Email to them for their information.

    This has been going-on for the past year and it is not only Emails that have been removed, there have been attempts to remove "Aberdeen School Project - Comments and Discussion Part 2" remotely from my home computer and the implications of doing that should astound all of us. Can I suggest that whoever is instructing this is told to desist?

    I asked on Monday that a meeting be arranged in the early part of this week between myself and Harper MacLeod to agree an outcome settlement and it is now Wednesday and I have heard nothing. I attach another copy of my earning capacity as an engineer and that explains why my patience is running thin. Can I suggest that all of you, including Ms Baillie, insist that this meeting takes place?

    Our professional duty is to protect the public interest, not Harper MacLeod's interest. I have done that and I am now asking you to do the same. Therefore, ensure the meeting is organized today, please.


    ReplyDelete
  181. Dear Mr Hewlett, Mr Kerr and Ms Baillie,

    I presume the minister that we are all waiting on is Shona Robison MSP. I attach her letter of 19/5/23 to Ms Baillie. The two substantive points she makes in the letter are:

    1. "Settlement Monitoring" - this was answered by Professor Hamza on 19/2/24 (attached) and Ms Robison is clearly incorrect.
    2. "Responsibility for engaging with Aberdeen City Council" - The Education Scotland Act places that with ministers, not with myself.

    My experience over the past 10-years has been that the neither the Scottish Government nor Aberdeen City Council has any concept of engineering, they should not be left in charge of engineering and the epiphany moment for them will be when there is a serious incident.

    Dear Ms Baillie,

    I asked you on Monday to consult with ministers (presumably Ms Robison) and arrange a meeting for me with Harper MacLeod for early this week. If you are refusing to do that, please explain your reasons. This is the third time I have asked you and each day is costing me a great deal of money. You are aware of that?


    ReplyDelete
  182. Dear Ms Baillie,

    You have replied to say that you have no "locus". Your locus is that you are my constituency MSP and I have asked for your assistance and you cannot decline without providing a reason and I have asked you to do that. How many times do I have to repeat this to you?

    The "locus" of the engineering failure lies in the two letters, the first from yourself to Ms Laing of 2/8/18 and the second her reply to you of 25/1/19. Hence, both of you are central figures, both to the unstable condition of the land and the building and to my lost income over the years.

    This is the most easily preventable of all recent failures in UK civil-engineering and it was caused entirely by your refusal to listen and so you are not in a position to self-determine what you will and will not do. If you had listened, insurance would have paid to fix the school. You do know that, don't you?

    I sent to you evidence of this morning, from Saudi Arabian Parsons, of my expected rate of pay. Your decision has cost me in excess of £864,000 since 2/8/18 and that is what is vexing me. God knows how much the school will cost to fix.

    I asked you to liaise with Ms Robison and arrange for an instruction to be given to Harper MacLeod to meet me for a final outcome meeting early this week. It is now Wednesday evening and so please do that now.


    ReplyDelete
  183. Dear Mr Hewlett,

    Can the SPSO liaise with Ms Robison to arrange my meeting with Harper MacLeod for Friday 26/4/24, please. My losses are too great for this to continue any longer and Ms Baillie is clearly refusing to engage in any of the matters at hand.

    My advice would be to leave the stability (or lack thereof) of the land and the building to be explained by Ms Winfield and her team at Buro Happold and I presume that Mr Kerr is now taking charge of that on behalf of his constituents.

    Can you get back to me today on this, please.

    ReplyDelete

There is a problem Houston.

Hi Folks, Due to the change of internet at library, I am unable to see my blog. I can't even see a preview, until such time as I get ba...