Glasgow University Senior Management involved in institutional bullying, discrimination, harassment, malpractice and criminal fraud.

Dear All

Most people are unaware how corrupt the University of Glasgow actually is, here below is a copy of a letter sent to the Principal and all then Vice-Principals listed in paragraph one, it was sent with a complete set of third party University of Glasgow documents which proves institutional bullying, discrimination, harassment, malpractice and criminal fraud.

You can find pictures of some of these disgusting vile people on the web who condoned bullying in a publicly funded charity.

By directing you to their photographs that way you can know them by sight; these people are corrupt and unfit to be office holders in a charity. As you can see the corruption in the University of Glasgow runs deep and goes to the very top of senior management.

Everything discussed in the letter below is 100% true and back to the hilt with third party evidence.

Despite repeated attempts to get the named individuals in paragragh one to act; they allowed bullying and fraud to continue, separate money that was paid in course fees has still not been returned and enters its fifth year of non payment in the next academic year.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Dear Sir Muir Russell

I am making a formal complaint to you and the Vice Principals (Robin Leake, Anton Muscatelli, Andrea Nolan, Peter Holmes, Steve Beaumont, and Christopher Morris) against four Senior Heads of University Departments: Julie Ommer, SRS Director; Dr. Jack Aitken, Head of the Senate Office; Professor Christopher Gilmore, Head of Chemistry and David Fildes, Head of the Data Protection Office who have all lied within my disciplinary process. Their gross misconduct and lies have resulted in my being the victim of institutional bullying, discrimination, harassment, malpractice and fraud.

I have prepared this document package which is merely a sample of the evidence I have at my disposal which clearly demonstrates that my allegations have merit, are truthful, and require immediate investigation by the Human Resources Department. To date certain individuals within the University have denied me my legal rights under the Policy and Procedures of the University and the law. A recent example of this is the fact that my complaints were passed to Professor Robert Rennie, Senate Assessor of Student Complaints. This man is attached to the Senate Office and does not handle complaints against staff. This is actually confirmed in writing by Dr. Jack Aitken in his letter dated 25th February 2004 (appendix G).

As you are aware I have made these complaints to you previously. I had hoped that since you are under a legal obligation to provide a duty of care to me, that you would have instructed the Human Resources Department to conduct an investigation into my complaints to discover if there was any justification to them. You failed to act. I now feel that providing you with a selection of some of the many lies these senior members of staff have told within this disciplinary matter, that you could no longer choose to over-look their gross misconduct.

I also have other evidence which includes: signed witness statements, additional official University documentation, video and audio tape evidence. All this evidence has been available for two years, sadly the University does not want to look at it, because it does not want to be compelled to act against senior staff who are guilty of gross misconduct. If the University simply refuses to look at the evidence then the staff can never be found guilty and punished. This means staff that institutionally bully, victimise, discriminate and harass me are being allowed to continue to act in this criminal manner with the full permission and cognisance of you and the Vice Principals.

The most important point to make is that if you and the Vice Principals fail to deal with my complaint in a fair and impartial way, then the message that you are sending to your staff is that you and the Vice Principals condone institutional bullying. If this is the case then you are bringing the University into disrepute by your failure to act, it also would seriously undermine your personal credibility to run and be a fundholder in this charity. All allegations of fraud have to be reported to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, have you reported my allegations of fraud to S.H.E.F.C.? I contend that you and the Vice Principals failure to act makes you worse that the perpetrators of these criminal offences committed against me.

I have highlighted the specific sections of the enclosed documents which support my allegations and to draw your attention to the point. I have also cross referenced the documents to demonstrate how certain individuals have habitually lied within this disciplinary process. This will be my last attempt to encourage you to deal with these matters, if this correspondence is ignored as all my previous correspondence has been, then I will reluctantly have to pursue this matter externally of the University. I would be forced to do this for the benefit of the University and to clear my good name. Glasgow University should be a bastion of learning, free thinking and integrity. It should have no place for institutional bullying, discrimination, harassment, malpractice and fraud. I will therefore have no option but seek the advice and assistance of your peer group.

Yours sincerely

Mr. George Laird

Appendices list and descriptions

Appendix A is from Mr. David Fildes, Data Protection Manager at the University of Glasgow to Ms. Lynne Shackley of the Information Commissioner in Wilmslow. To address some of the points I have highlighted them for your ease.

Point 6. Mr. David Fildes, Head of the University Data Protection Office has lied in writing. For the avoidance of doubt I was not threatening and intimidating, nor was I escorted from the premises. I have the entire conversation on audio tape, and can make this available at any meeting with the Human Resources Department. I felt it was necessary to record conversations with staff, as it was my reasonable belief that I was the victim of crime (Data Protection Act 1998, part V, Section 55). This has proved to be correct. Mr. Fildes refers to an incident he was not present at, with the intention of smearing me to Ms. Shackley in an attempt to prejudice her investigation.

Point 7 a. If you cross reference appendix A with appendix I, a letter from Professor Gilmore (assessor/judge) you will see that both are lying according to Mr. Fildes’s letter.

Point 7 b. The Director of the University Sports Recreation Service, Ms Julie Ommer claims that I signed in two people as part of her evidence, a Ken Thomson and Graeme Massett. I told the University that this was a lie and asked them to provide the sign in sheets to prove this. Mr. David Fildes lies when he claims to Ms. Shackley that I stated that I signed in these visitors, this is the exact opposite of what I stated in writing and a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth by him. The sheets that Ms. Ommer claims prove her allegation have disappeared or more importantly they never existed.

Point 8. I have continually claimed that documents which were listed had been denied to me. Despite putting in a Data Subject Access Request, the University illegally withheld documents. In Appendix B, I have highlighted an email from Mr. David Fildes were he claims that all the documentation has been passed to me. His letter to Ms. Shackley 23rd April 2004 proves he is a liar. He broke my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, where I am entitled to all documents pertaining to me, even if I not specifically named. The University has a file of documents pertaining to me, and have deliberately and illegally withheld documents from me. My right of total disclosure under the Human Rights Act 1998 was deliberately violated by the University to protect The Director of the University Sports Recreation Service, Ms Julie Ommer.

Appendix B is highlighted with Mr. David Fildes claim that all documents were passed to me, this contradicts his statement to Ms. Shackley, the Information Commissioner in appendix A. This is incontrovertible proof that Mr. David Fildes is a liar, and that he lied to prevent me obtaining evidence for my disciplinary dispute. This is gross professional misconduct.

Appendix C, is the report from Professor Christopher Gilmore, he claimed (on audio tape) during the hearings conducted against me by him, that he had no part in the rewriting of the revised complaint against me, this is a lie. He also had access to the full original complaint which was denied to me. This is confirmed by Dr. Aitken inAppendix D, and this is a breach of my rights under both the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998. Professor Christopher Gilmore goes onto lie in writing claiming that I had at my disposal the full documentation from 1996 to 2003 in his report to the Senate Disciplinary Committee (appeal stage). He clearly knew that documentation was denied to me at his assessor hearing. He was specifically told that documents have been withheld and this is clearly recorded on audio tape for the avoidance of doubt but both he and the Senate Office lie in his written report to the committee.

Appendix D is a letter from Dr. Jack Aitken dated 21st November 2004. In this letter Dr. Jack Aitken who claimed the Senate Office was there to protect my rights, lied twice. I have highlighted both these lies and his claim that a fuller explanation of the charges against me would be explained verbally to me. The first lie By Dr. Aitken is that I have received a copy of all material held by the Senate Office. The second lie by Dr. Aitken is that I have a copy of all the material that has been provided to Professor Gilmore (assessor/judge).

Appendix E is a letter from Mrs. Linda McCormick, the former Head of the Computing Services at Glasgow University. Mrs. McCormick has illegally downloaded my documentation from the university computing system. I have included this as I wish to demonstrate that this institutional bullying, discrimination, harassment, malpractice and fraud is not the work of a few minor university staff. Mrs. McCormick was never asked to take my personal data out of the system. This action was not done to benefit me, since I cannot access these email files outside the University Computer Network which she was aware I was suspended from. I can think of only one possible reason why Mrs. McCormick would do this, and that was to allow someone at the University to access my personal data without leaving a record on the system.

Appendix F are three emails, two are from a foreign female student, Styliani (Stella) Pachakis and the other from myself to her. I have included this appendix to show you that at every level of the SRS, run by Ms. Julie Ommer, staff were involved in harassment against me. The person named is Alan Francis, a member of the SRS teaching staff, he and others were allegedly approaching people trying to find someone to lie that I had taken money from my fellow students. As I am on state benefits you can appreciate how this type of bullying and harassment can be very stressful. This was just another part of a long running and deliberate smear campaign used against me at all levels of the University (please cross refer with Appendix A).

Appendix G is a letter from Dr. Jack Aitken, head of the Senate Office to my advisor, Bill Dempsey. Dr. Aitken clearly states at the bottom of page one, that his office and the Senate Assessors attached do not deal with complaints by students against staff.

Appendix H is a letter from Professor Robert Rennie, Law Faculty who is also attached to the Senate Office. Professor Rennie apparently was able to conduct an investigation into my complaint without interviewing me or looking at my evidence. He then managed to clear individuals from the Department he is attached to. I should point out that under the university staff procedures this is not allowed. So, either Dr. Jack Aitken when he wrote on the 25th February 2004 is a liar or Professor Robert Rennie has been involved in the covering up of fraud at Glasgow University by investigating a case that he is not allowed to, under the policies and procedures of the University.

The highlighted part of the next page is Dr. Jack Aitken claiming that the University of Glasgow does not have to abide by the Human Rights Act 1998, this is a lie. This as you must be aware is illegal. The Human Rights Act 1998 is revising legislation, and all other Acts before 1998 must be read, to be consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998. This means that even though I am a mere student at the University of Glasgow, I have human rights granted to me by law which cannot simply be removed by the Code of Conduct or Practices of the University.

The third part of this letter which I have highlighted is the fact that the University used a different set of rules at their hearing to the one that they gave me. I was supplied a copy of the rules of 2002/2003 and if you do a web search you will find that 32:17 which is referred to, is plagiarism. Under the code of 2003/2004, 32:17 is denial of responsibility. I was treated with such contempt that they deliberately gave me a set of rules that did not apply. The Senate Office now claim that 2002/2003 was used throughout my case, this is a lie and it is confirmed in the letter of 8th March 2004 from Professor Christopher Gilmore.

Appendix H when read with appendix G clearly shows that I have been discriminated against by the University denying me the right to put in an official complaint to the Human Resources department. Mr. Ian Black, Director of Personnel has written to me in an email that because I am a student he cannot investigate staff misconduct or the fraud that they have committed against me. This is clearly nonsense as this is covered in the Academic and Academic Staff Related Handbook which is available on-line.

Appendix I is a letter allegedly written by Professor Christopher Gilmore (the judge at the hearing conducted against me) who states that they have the right to conduct disciplinary hearings as it is “well established in the framework of the Human Rights Act”. Please refer to Appendix G were Dr. Jack Aitken states the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to the University of Glasgow, which one of them is the liar?

The second highlighted part is the claim by Professor Gilmore that an email request was sent on the 4th of August 2003 to the Senate Office asking for academic information on me. In appendix A, point 7 a, The Data Protection Manager, Mr. David Fildes claims that Gilmore denies the existence of the email, which one of them is a liar? The third part highlighted is them wanting to discipline me for breaking a rule which did not exist at the time. The University was simply attempting to retro create rules for the purpose of finding me guilty, and to victimise me further.

Appendix J is a memorandum from Mr. David Fildes to the Heads of University Departments regarding my Data Subject Access Request. I have highlighted part of page two where he raised two points that required specific action within the Data Subject Access Request.

1/ The Senate Office under the leadership of Dr. Jack Aitken withheld notes from the meetings of the Assessors with his department notwithstanding other documents. Please refer to appendix D were he clearly states twice he is handing over all documentation, knowing that this is a lie.

2/ The request that all allegations made against me should be supplied, this proves that Senate Office and the Sports and Recreation Service knew exactly what I was asking for in terms of information and deliberately withheld documents.

Appendix K is my email to Dr. Jack Aitken, Head of the Senate Office which I cover the points of the meeting with him and another staff member on the 3rd September 2003 at 2 p.m. I have highlighted the point that Dr. Aitken informs me and my representative that the Senate Office does not deal with complaints against staff and I have to complain to the Court Office. If you cross reference this with appendix G you will see that he confirms this in writing. He also states that the Senate Assessors only deal with student matters and that complaints against staff would have to be referred on to be dealt with the relevant code for staff. The Senate Office knowing this attempt to deceive me by using the Senate Assessor for Student Complaints attached to the Senate Office, Professor Robert Rennie to clear themselves of wrong doing. Professor Rennie refused to interview me or look at any evidence I wanted to present. He allowed the Senate Office under the leadership of Dr. Jack Aitken to only supply him with evidence to find them innocent. I write and ask him if he can tell me a system of justice in the world where the accused prepares the complainants case and submits it to the judge. His reply is contained in appendix H confirming he will not interview me or look at my evidence.

Appendix L, is an unedited email sent by Dugald MacKie to Julie Ommer. Dr. Jack Aitken included this within a document package with a letter dated 21 st November 2003. This confirms that Dr. Jack Aitken and the Senate Office knew that John Finnegan, SRS employee had been suspended for having a machete in his locker. At both Senate Assessors hearings where I raised the fact that I was the subject of a campaign of institutional bullying, Dr. Aitken and Mrs. E. Shearer knew the facts and allowed Professor Christopher Gilmore to lie to me. This is also contained on audio tape. Also in appendix D, Dr. Aitken clearly states that Gilmore had access to this information and he (Gilmore) therefore clearly knew that he was lying to me and my representative.

The first highlighted part of this email from Dugald Mackie, the former Secretary of the Court, informed Julie Ommer that he was forwarding my complaint to Ian H (Hawkins). He instructed Hawkins to handle my “complaint” in the same way as the Dr. Craig Ross one. Please note the use of inverted commas in “complaint”. I believed Mackie would act professionally and ensure that my “complaint” was impartially investigated. This email demonstrates that MacKie had no intention of doing this.

Ommer confirms in the second highlighted part that an SRS supervisor, John Finnegan was suspended for having a machete in his locker, which was found by security in 1995. I spoke to a former SRS staff member and she told me that the SRS management could not find anyone to give evidence against him so he got off with it. Before this incident he was convicted for carrying knuckle-dusters at Glasgow Airport and fined 100 pounds at Paisley Sheriff Court. For four years, he was left in charge of the Stevenson building with a growing history of violence and intimidation towards staff and students. Finnegan was always careful to pick his victims, I know because I was one of them.

Appendix M is an email from Julie Ommer to Dugald Mackie confirming that SRS employee John Finnegan was suspended for having a machete in his locker. At the Senate Assessor stage I decided to test the honesty of both the Senate Office and the Senate Assessors. I told them that I recalled from my memory that SRS thug John Finnegan was suspended for having a machete in his locker to see if they would confirm or deny this. At the first meeting Gilmore stated Finnegan was not suspended at all, in the second meeting, he then stated he had been suspended but not for the machete incident but for another matter. I have Professor Christopher Gilmore telling me this lie on tape while a member of the Senate Office staff sat there doing nothing, knowing that Gilmore was lying. You can cross reference this with appendix L, another email correspondence between Dugald Mackie and Julie Ommer regarding the machete incident et al.

Appendix N, is a letter from Martin J. Bradley, a former student and witness to an assault on me by the convicted weapon carrying SRS thug John Finnegan. After I complained to Dugald Mackie about this and gave the Court Office Martin’s name, he was subjected to intimidation by Finnegan. It should be pointed out that documentation exists that Mackie forwarded my personal correspondence directly to Julie Ommer, SRS. At a later date Martin Bradley was attacked and stabbed, it was reported to the Police and a letter filed with the Registry Office. Also note the date and to whom it was sent, Reynolds (Senate Office) never contacted Martin and never contacted me regarding this. Given the nature of the institutional bullying against me and knowing I would need this at a later date I asked Martin for a signed duplicate and we posted his original to Reynolds by taking it personally to the main security gatehouse.

Appendix O is a letter from Julie Ommer which is original letter of complaint to Dr. Jack Aitken dated 18th July 2003. This confirms that Dr. Aitken is a liar when cross referenced with appendix D. Dr. Aitken was specifically written to with the full unedited complaint. It also proves that the Senate Office were given material which I was illegally denied and sat through hearings ensuring that I was discriminated against while they covered up the truth to protect SRS Director, Julie Ommer, a liar, bully and cheat who obtained a pecuniary advantage by fraudulent deception.

Appendix P is an email from Julie Ommer which specifically asks for the investigator to be Ian Hawkins, who she refers to as excellent because he had previously carried out an investigation into a complaint against her. During this investigation he failed to interview any of the witnesses against her, or deal with the specific complaint. It is clear from Appendix L that this was how Mackie had instructed him to carry out the investigation. That is why during Hawkins’ investigation of my complaint, in a period of ten months, he failed to interview the accused (John Finnegan), the accuser (myself), and a witness (Michael Carroll). In fact this “excellent” investigator eventually managed to interview my witness (Graham Kennedy), after five months of pressure. Ms. Ommer suggests opening my complaints up to “objective scrutiny” whilst at the same time being happy with Mackie directing Hawkins to ensure that the investigation would not be handled in that manner, rather it would be handled “in a similar way to the Dr. Craig Ross one”. A guaranteed whitewash.