Dear All
I was checking through my statcounter to see who had popped in, and to my surprise, I had a visit from an old fart.
The old fart in question was Professor Robert Rennie, a law professor; he was one of the people who denied me justice while at the human rights abusing Glasgow University.
IP Address 130.209.22.237
Time and date 21st December 2010 10:54:23
He is a Professor of Conveyancing.
In law, conveyancing is the transfer of legal title of property from one person to another, or the granting of an encumbrance such as a mortgage or a lien.
When I was complaining about my abusive treatment 'my' complaint was generated by staff, of the people I was complaining about and submitted to him on my behalf, without my knowledge.
Professor Robert Rennie investigated the Glasgow University staff version of my complaint.
He headed a secret hearing into my complaints organised by the people I was complaining about!
I was checking through my statcounter to see who had popped in, and to my surprise, I had a visit from an old fart.
The old fart in question was Professor Robert Rennie, a law professor; he was one of the people who denied me justice while at the human rights abusing Glasgow University.
IP Address 130.209.22.237
Time and date 21st December 2010 10:54:23
He is a Professor of Conveyancing.
In law, conveyancing is the transfer of legal title of property from one person to another, or the granting of an encumbrance such as a mortgage or a lien.
When I was complaining about my abusive treatment 'my' complaint was generated by staff, of the people I was complaining about and submitted to him on my behalf, without my knowledge.
Professor Robert Rennie investigated the Glasgow University staff version of my complaint.
He headed a secret hearing into my complaints organised by the people I was complaining about!
I was:
1/ Not told it was taking place.
2/ Not interviewed.
3/ Not allowed to submit evidence
4/ None of my witnesses were interviewed or allowed to submit evidence.
As a qualified lawyer, he must have known that this was entirely wrong.
In Appendix H of my formal complaint it was sent to the then Principal Muir Russell and all the Vice Principals Robin Leake, Anton Muscatelli, Andrea Nolan, Peter Holmes, Steve Beaumont, and Christopher Morris I pointed out what Rennie and others were up to.
Here is the text of part of the letter sent.
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.
My letter and all Glasgow University documents which proved every single allegation went to the senior management of Glasgow University as I said including the current Principal, the corrupt foreigner Anton Muscatelli.
So why did so many people involve themselves in covering up fraud?
Because I was working class and poor, this won’t have happened to me if I was rich and socially well connected.
So, who was I complaining about?
Four Senior Heads of University Departments:
Julie Ommer, SRS Director;
Dr. Jack Aitken, Head of the Senate Office;
Professor Christopher Gilmore, Head of Chemistry
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.
You can click on the link and read in detail how they operate:
http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.com/2009/08/glasgow-university-senior-management.html
Glasgow University operate a secret policy of bullying and discrimination and that runs from the top of the senior management downwards.
Corrupt foreigner Anton Muscatelli still hasn’t returned a single penny of the various monies stolen from me or apologised for the way I was treated.
At Glasgow University the rights of the staff abuser are more important that the rights of the victim.
Yours sincerely
As a qualified lawyer, he must have known that this was entirely wrong.
In Appendix H of my formal complaint it was sent to the then Principal Muir Russell and all the Vice Principals Robin Leake, Anton Muscatelli, Andrea Nolan, Peter Holmes, Steve Beaumont, and Christopher Morris I pointed out what Rennie and others were up to.
Here is the text of part of the letter sent.
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.
My letter and all Glasgow University documents which proved every single allegation went to the senior management of Glasgow University as I said including the current Principal, the corrupt foreigner Anton Muscatelli.
So why did so many people involve themselves in covering up fraud?
Because I was working class and poor, this won’t have happened to me if I was rich and socially well connected.
So, who was I complaining about?
Four Senior Heads of University Departments:
Julie Ommer, SRS Director;
Dr. Jack Aitken, Head of the Senate Office;
Professor Christopher Gilmore, Head of Chemistry
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.
You can click on the link and read in detail how they operate:
http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.com/2009/08/glasgow-university-senior-management.html
Glasgow University operate a secret policy of bullying and discrimination and that runs from the top of the senior management downwards.
Corrupt foreigner Anton Muscatelli still hasn’t returned a single penny of the various monies stolen from me or apologised for the way I was treated.
At Glasgow University the rights of the staff abuser are more important that the rights of the victim.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
459 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 459 Newer› Newest»A fascinating few days ahead George. Thankfully, Swinney appears to be dead in the water now. That's taken 8-years. It makes you wonder how many more of our schools and hospitals are timebombs doesn't it.
Dear Jackie and Gary,
I attach an index page for the information sent to Beltrami on Sunday. If any additional information was submitted yesterday, it can be added to the index by Beltrami?
Since most of the Scottish Government's information is provided by Fairhurst, and much of that information is incorrect, should we be inviting Fairhurst to the meeting so that they can present it and answer questions on it? They are the client's geotechnical experts and only they can answer for their work.
The main question I have is: 'Why are we still relying on visual inspection reports and why are we still getting them so wrong?' Perhaps Harper MacLeod should be answering that for us?
Should the EIS witness the meeting? They may have a few questions to ask at the end. They represent the employees who use this building every day and so they have a duty to be aware of the actuality of unfolding events.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
INDEX
Scottish Government Information:
• Cundall Visual Inspection Report
• Fairhurst Visual Inspection Report 1
• Fairhurst Visual Inspection Report 2
• Ramsay and Chalmers Visual Inspection Report
• John Swinney Letter 20.12.2017
S. Dick Information:
• Fairhurst Soil Investigation Report
• Opinions of Members of the American Society of Civil Engineers
• Summary of the Cole Inquiry Recommendations
Photographs Showing:
• Subsidence
• Upwelling water
• Water inundation
• Groundwater
• Internal scour
• Measures taken to drain the site prior to installation of the 5m deep trench. These have been nullified by the effect of the trench
Dear Jackie and Gary,
No-one has advised me with a venue, date, time and attendance for the meeting yet. Are we talking about a meeting on Thursday or Friday now?
The agenda, index and information pack are complete and can be sent-out to the attendees today.
Can I suggest that the meeting is chaired and minuted by the Health and Safety Executive; I will present my evidence, Fairhurst can present their evidence and Harper MacLeod can finish-off by advising on the contractual standing of visual inspection reports?
There is an expectation that I will be proven correct and I think we all know that and so it is crucial that the meeting takes place this week, the school is fixed, if it can be fixed, and I can get-on with my life.
Let me know please.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
Please read this chain of Emails again. Specific people should attend. I cannot ask them to attend and neither can Mr McAteer. They can only be instructed either by Holyrood Ministers, or by Hub.
The Health and Safety Executive will respond quickly and so will Police Scotland. Fairhurst, Harper MacLeod and Stephen Garvin just need to be instructed by either by Ms Somerville, or by Hub and then it is done. That is all that is required.
Mr McAteer's secretary has had all of the requisite information since Sunday but she can only send it out when Mr McAteer has confirmation of who is going to attend on Friday. Can that be done by the Scottish Government tomorrow morning, please?
Gary - Let me know what is the most suitable venue? Could it be held at the Health and Safety Executive offices? That might be less intimidating for the rest of us.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
On Tuesday, 10 May 2022, 17:21:47 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Dear Stephen
I am confused. I wasn’t organising or attending this meeting. I understood that you were contacting Police Scotland and attending with Mr McAteer.
Best wishes
Jackie
From: Stephen Dick
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 4:24 PM
To: Baillie J (Jackie), MSP ; Gary McAteer
Cc: Bob Matheson ; Hannah Smith ; Somerville S (Shirley-Anne), MSP ; Cheryl Beattie ; Scotland Office General Enquiries ; Correspondence
Subject: Re: Brimmond School, Aberdeen - Conclusion
CAUTION: This e-mail originated from outside of The Scottish Parliament. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Jackie and Gary,
Can you both demand that a meeting is scheduled for this Friday, please.
I attach another copy of the KSA example. There, any request to Government for a meeting or for specialist advice is answered with a professional response within 24-hours. That way, crucial things tend to get done on-time. Why can't we do that here?
I include the Secretary of State for Scotland and Audit Scotland in the distribution as this example indicates an Administration in malaise who are unable to do anything honestly and straightforwardly.
I intend to finish this off because I have no choice, but this really has sickened me with this country.
If the Scottish Government want to attend and sit in a corner and say nothing, then that's fine. But, just schedule the meeting please. My suggested attendees are as follows:
1. S. Dick
2. G. McAteer
3. E. Pirie - Harper MacLeod
4. A. Scott-Kiddie - Fairhurst
5. S. Garvin - Scottish Government
6. Health and Safety Executive
7. Police Scotland
The final item on the agenda is: 'When will a decision be made on the safety of this building and who will it be made by?' That is the only point at which Stephen Garvin will be expected to contribute.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
As my constituency MSP, I can only liaise with you and if you don't respond, then nothing happens. For now, the action is with the Cabinet Secretary and Hub and it is all set-out below. The Cabinet Secretary can inform Mr McAteer and he can inform me.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
On Wednesday, 11 May 2022, 09:24:46 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Dear Stephen
I am afraid that I have back to back meetings from 9.30am onwards today. As I am not responsible for organising the meeting, I am not sure what input you need from me, other than trying to speak to the Cabinet Secretary, who has been copied in to all your emails.
Best wishes
Jackie
Dear Mr McAteer,
Can you arrange a meeting with the Health and Safety Executive for Friday afternoon please? I'll leave it to your judgement whether Police Scotland are required at this stage, or not. Natalie has the package of information and the agenda and it can be sent-out today.
I see it as crucial that the Health and Safety Executive review this information without delay. If we meet them on Friday, we will have an initial opinion from them on Monday 16th May and that can be distributed to all interested parties.
I will spend a short time presenting the Scottish Government's visual inspection reports because I cannot explain the case without doing that, but you will witness the presentation to ensure that it is carried-out fairly.
By copy of this Email to the Cabinet Secretary, she is made aware that the meeting is going to take place and it is for her to determine whether anyone from the Scottish Government, Fairhurst, or Harper MacLeod will attend.
Let me know please.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
George - I should be meeting with the HSE soon and that will put a final end to this saga.
I was reading earlier that the commander of the Ukrainian forces trapped inside the Mariupol steel plant has asked the Pope and Elon Musk to assist his men by arranging safe passage for them to a non-aligned country. That's a complex job, but they are trying.
Is fixing a school in Aberdeen so complex? Complex for who - the Scottish Government, Aberdeen City Council, Hub, Scottish Building Standards, Education Scotland, Scottish Futures Trust? Who is finding this so complex and why? That is what I would like to know just now.
Anyway, very soon the wait will be over. Once the HSE look at it, they decide within 24-hours.
Fairhurst's Soil Investigation Report is part of my evidence and I will be concentrating on the Executive Summary recommendation: 'The presence of shallow and potentially upwelling groundwater on the site reduces the available bearing capacity to less than 75kN/m2 and with this present they will not be suitable as a founding strata.' Nevertheless, this is the founding strata and you have seen numerous photographs showing shallow and upwelling groundwater and so Norman Silvester was correct, wasn't he.
I think it is crucial that the ICE take steps over the next few days, and certainly before the meeting takes place, to address this point. The Scottish Government works on the principal of 'plausible deniability' and they are able to do that only because of visual inspection reports provided by your members. What I am saying is that these visual inspection reports are bogus and are capable of being mis-used and of causing great harm and we have already seen that. Professor Cole made exactly this point, ironically with the full support of the ICE, and so something has gone very badly wrong here.
Please respond to everyone noted above letting us know what the Institution's position is. Do you want me to present these reports, do you want your members to withdraw them, or do you want your members to present them? They are bound to be discussed at the meeting and, given the prominent role they have played so far, these discussions will be crucial to the success of the Scottish Government's case. We may only have a few days left before the meeting is called and so an early response would be most helpful.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Hannah,
I attach the Agenda for the upcoming meeting. It is item 4 that I am requesting your assistance with. Who is going to explain these visual inspection reports to the meeting? Do you want to withdraw them and, if so, let everyone know that please.
The meeting will now take place with the Health and Safety Executive, instead of Police Scotland and the reason for that is that they will react with an initial finding almost instantly; I believe within 24-hours.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Hannah,
The attached index page shows the information which will be produced at the meeting. I sent all of this to Gary McAteer at the start of the week for onward transmission to the HSE but, as I said earlier, you have seen it before and there is no point in sending it to you again.
The presentation of evidence will be in two halves, the first half will be the presentation of the Scottish Government's evidence and the second half will be the presentation of my evidence. I am content that my evidence is strong but if you are not content that the Scottish Government evidence is strong, then now is the time to do something about it.
If, for example, the Scottish Government's information is withdrawn, then they have nothing to submit and ergo nothing to explain and we can go ahead with the meeting early next week at a date and time to suit Gary McAteer's diary.
Let me know what you want to do please.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
I notice that you haven't posted any videos up for a while. I hope you're keeping OK? We're at the end here. They're all shitting themselves; even the ICE.
Dear Mr McAteer,
Can you send the package of information to the Health and Safety Executive and arrange for us to meet them in the latter part of next week, from Wednesday onwards?
Can Natalie send-out the information on Monday morning? The more time the HSE has to study the information the better.
I am satisfied that everyone understands the situation now and that the HSE have experience of visual inspection reports.
If Fairhurst, Cundall or Ramsay and Chalmers want to explain the reports, then they can attend the meeting. Otherwise, I will simply present them as they are.
Natalie should have the information but ask her to give me a call if she has any questions. All I need is confirmation of a date and a time and I will see you there.
I have asked for this case to be completely settled by the end of this month. Can I leave that with you?
Finally, Audit Scotland's recommendation to me (and it was back in 2018) was that I contact the HSE and PCaW and so although I am late, I am not too late.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl,
I don't know whether or not you send photographs through to Natalie? The purpose of doing that would be to alert the Health and Safety Executive that you have concerns re the safety of this building.
What I don't want to happen, is for me to arrive for a meeting and be presented with a series of photographs provided by the EIS and be asked to explain them. I will explain my own photographs, but not yours.
The information that I provided to Natalie last week was copied through to Bob. It is fairly concise and I don't want it to be expanded with photographs that I have not seen before. That will just make my meeting needlessly complex.
Any meetings the EIS have can use my information and I am happy for you to do that. But, I don't want to be ambushed with any of your information at a meeting and asked to explain it.
So, if you decide to send anything through, just make that clear please.
I sent you a possible agenda some time ago which you could use, but that's for you to decide. My agenda is different, but makes the same points, just in a different way.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
I have carried-out some work on this case over the weekend and the current situation is as follows:
1. This case should be investigated by the HSE and not by the Police. When I last spoke to Gary McAteer a week ago, it is true that we started by discussing the Police, but it is actually the HSE who are the proper investigating authority at the stage we are at now.
2. I would like to report this as a 'dangerous occurrence'.
3. I have offered to attend a meeting with the HSE on Wednesday. All I need to know is who in Scotland will make that appointment for me?
4. The HSE advice for a dangerous occurrence is that the report should be submitted without delay. I cannot submit the report, the council will refuse to do it (incorrectly in my opinion), the EIS have been asked to do it in the past and they have not responded and so the question I am asking is 'who makes the report?' If it helps allay everyone's reluctance to get involved, what I can say is that the HSE really don't care who makes the report. The only aspect of this case that may annoy them is that the report has still not been made.
5. I spent a couple of hours yesterday going through Hub's visual inspection reports again and I handed the information over to Mr McAteer. The way I read the Scottish Government and the council's submission of these reports, was that those by Fairhurst are the ones that they are placing most reliance upon. Perhaps the Institution of Civil Engineers should take another look at these reports viz a viz the Soil Investigation Report, which is also by Fairhurst, because there are a lot of really big problems there?
6. I will attend the meeting with the HSE myself, or with either Mr McAteer, or with Mr McAteer and any engineers who have been involved in the production of the visual inspection reports.
7. Personally speaking, I think everyone should relax about the HSE somehow seeing this as a waste of their time. The 40-odd experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers took this case seriously from the beginning and you will find the HSE will do the same.
So, to summarize, the information for the meeting was submitted a week ago and, in my opinion, the weight of evidence which suggests that the building is unsafe outweighs the weight of evidence that it is safe and it does that comfortably. All I require is for a meeting to be called with the HSE. Can you respond only on that point please?
If the building is safe and the HSE disagrees with me, then the situation changes but I think that, in the meantime, we should pay attention to the experts that have expressed their opinion on this school and all take it very, very seriously until the HSE have reviewed it themselves. Is that fair?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
This is to the HSE. The attached letters are by John Swinney, Jonathan Moore and Fraser Innes of Hub.
Dear Sir,
I provide the attached letters which demonstrate the lack of respect shown to whistle-blowers in Scotland. I would stress that I am not making any kind of political point; the only point I am making is that the support is for those carrying-out the alleged malpractice, it is not for the whistle-blower.
The Hyatt Regency case set a precedent many years ago that if you say that you have checked something and it is safe, then you have be able to prove that. These gentlemen may be correct and if they are then they will be able to provide the supporting opinion by BuroHappold to which they refer. If they cannot do that, then we are left wondering why an individual member of the public has had to investigate this case on his own for the past 8-years and what would have happened if he hadn't done that?
I see that as being the present position.
I remain willing to attend a meeting but I have asked Mr McAteer to assist me in finding a resolution which returns me to work. As you will understand, you can only keep going for so long and once this case is handed-over to the HSE, then my involvement can be brought to an end.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary,
I just received this from Raghu Prakash.
If anyone can deliver a final, devastating blow it is Raghu. Hence, I would encourage all to hurry-up because the experts of American Society of Civil Engineers respond within a couple of days and we know that, don't we?
I can come into your office on Friday and that puts a deadline of everyone. Let me know please.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
----- Forwarded message -----
From: Raghu Prakash
To: Stephen Dick
Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2022, 15:45:24 BST
Subject: Received emails
Steve,
Received your 3 emails. Rest else is ok for now.
Will post them and revert back to you with comments
Currently, I don't have access to Linkedin posts from my office. Will grab a moment at home and reply you
Regards
Raghu
Raghu,
Thanks for that. That's most helpful.
They are saying: 'We can wait for the building to crack first before we have to check the ground' and I am saying: 'No you can't - you need to check the ground first so that the building doesn't crack'.
The building was designed to Eurocodes and they are clear on this. I presume the ASCE codes are the same?
Anyway, give it a few days before you do anything and let me get back to you. I'll start thinking about what to post-up just now.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Raghu Prakash, the expert geotechnical engineer, contacted me from KSA earlier today. He's going to post this up for comments by ASCE members.......
How do you deal with Hydraulic Failure on this scale?
In late 2017, I asked members of the ASCE to contribute opinions and advice regarding a school building that is suffering from hydraulic failure. The question attracted almost 50No responses at the time and so it was popular. Let me update everyone:
The school was built in 2014/15 on a sloping site and in an area of relatively high rainfall. The whole area around the school slopes downwards for several miles meaning that groundwater moves in underground artesian layers towards the outfall, which is a local river.
The soils are alternating bands of clays and sands and gravels. The artesian routes are the sand and gravel layers and the thicker clay layers to the top and bottom of the artesian layers mean that they confine the artesian layers and they flow quickly under hydrostatic pressure.
The school is built upon shallow pad foundations, meaning that the artesian layers have to be protected. If they are broken by deep excavations or if they become discontinuous for any other reason, then the site will flood and the soil can collapse and that can all happen very quickly.
The Project Manager went on annual holiday and the engineer who deputized for him was unaware of this restriction. He was aware that contamination was reported on the site and so he went about digging a continuous 5m deep excavation from one end of the site to the other, on the upstream end of the site, looking for contamination. He didn’t find any contamination and so he filled the excavation back in with clay. It was a simple mistake.
This has effectively blocked all of the artesian layers down to a depth of 5m meaning that, in winter time, the site is inundated with both groundwater and surface water which is unable to drain through the topsoil as the water table is now so high.
In summer time, everything appears to be OK and this is just a winter time problem. In winter time, the artesian water is meeting the dam which is blocking its route and it is either coming up to the less dense soils at the surface to flood the site, or it is migrating under the dam to come up to the surface father downstream. Eurocode calls that ‘piping’.
The building has been checked visually for signs of settlement and there doesn’t appear to be any. I am conscious though that Surfside in Miami was only settling at a rate of 1-2mm per year prior to collapse and so it is possible that this building is settling and that it just hasn’t been noticed yet.
What concerns me the most is that the depth of 5m could hardly be worse from the point of view of protecting the stability of the pressure bulbs underlying each of the shallow pad foundations. All of the soil from ground level down to a depth of 5m is at risk of hydraulic failure and some of it is undoubtedly starting to fail already.
The way Eurocodes look at this is that two ‘limit states’ exist: There’s the ‘geotechnical limit state’ and then there’s the ‘structural limit state’. The geotechnical limit state is defined as ‘deformation of the ground’ and the structural limit state is defined as ‘deformation of the structure’. Obviously, the geotechnical limit state should be investigated by an expert straight away so that the structural limit state doesn’t arise.
One of the geotechnical limit states is ‘hydraulic failure’ and that can either be heave, piping or underground soil erosion and I attach photographs which show all three.
The question is: ‘What should the building owner be doing to prevent geotechnical failure turning into possible structural failure?’
What was suggested the last time was that the site should be drained at the upstream end down to a depth of 5m. It was thought that that should alleviate the problem but that, even then, future underpinning may be required. Is this still the case and what do folk think now?
Can you post this up George?
Dear Jackie,
However eager you are to be finished with this case, I am more eager than you are.
The sole purpose of the 2017 Cole Inquiry was so that we could all learn lessons from the Oxgangs school collapse of 2015. The number-one lesson was that we should no longer rely on visual inspection reports by structural engineers.
That was recommended not as an aside, or as some supplementary advice which the Scottish Government and Councils could take or leave, it was the single most important recommendation that would prevent it from happening again.
All that I am saying, and I have been saying this since 2016, is that we are doing exactly the same thing again and that is really concerning.
The question that I asked is whether yourself and Hannah are content that we are doing the right thing here? I say that because many world experts in the field of geotechnical engineering are convinced that we are not. So, are we doing the right thing....or are we not?
Mr Baker has explained that it is not a RIDDOR and that means that when the building cracks it will be a RIDDOR. He will then ask: 'what evidence do you have that this building is safe?' All that I am asking is, at that point, is a series of visual inspection reports by a structural engineers all that you have? Do you still not have any design checks and nothing from BuroHappold?
PE Raghu Prakash has recently posted-up the attached question for the geotechnical experts of the American Society of Civil Engineers. It is no more than a summary of what I have been explaining for the past number of years, isn't it. If the response is as overwhelming as it was in 2017 and if we get another 40-odd opinions back saying that this building is unsafe, then I think we all ought to be very circumspect about what we do next.
So, that is what I have done in order to help resolve this. What I think Hannah could do is review the visual inspection reports by ICE members Fairhurst and Cundall. I believe them to be incorrect and I have marked them up accordingly. Can these reports either be corrected and re-issued, or withdrawn? That is the normal engineering protocol and it will let us all know whether these reports are of any value. I suspect the answer to that question will be a resounding 'no'.
Please accept my advice on this, we should not be signing any building off as safe on the basis of visual inspection reports and Brimmond School is a classic example of why everyone in Scotland should stop doing that now.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
I have given this some thought and I think it is time for us to leave the safety of the school to the EIS Teaching Union from now-on.
For me, this could have been resolved in September 2014 and it has gone-on like a broken record since then because others have not been doing their job.
Now, I want a reasonable solution and a return to work as I should not be paying for this. That will not be easy and I will need some assistance and I have asked Mr McAteer to provide that and have a solution in place by the end of this week.
The solution to fixing the school is set-out below and it hasn't changed in all these years has it? In fact, it was discussed at meeting with Jonathan Moore and Bill Dodds of 17th August 2016: "22) SD stated that it was important that this report was reviewed because the report and the reactions of the respective parties to that report was crucial in his termination by Ogilvie." It's the very same report, by Hugh Mallett, and I am still asking for it to be reviewed! I know what the report says and, believe me, you are all in for the shock of your lives when you read it.
Can I ask that you provide assistance to Mr McAteer, if he needs it, as my situation has been brought about by employees of the Scottish Government?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Thanks Jackie - that's most helpful.
On Wednesday, 25 May 2022, 15:03:00 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Dear Stephen
I am happy to provide whatever assistance Mr McAteer should require and he is more than welcome to contact me should the need arise.
Best wishes
Jackie
From: Stephen Dick
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 8:49 AM
To: Baillie J (Jackie), MSP
Cc: Gary McAteer ; Hannah Smith ; Bob Matheson ; Cheryl Beattie
Subject: Re: RMc - FW: HSE
CAUTION: This e-mail originated from outside of The Scottish Parliament. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Jackie,
I have given this some thought and I think it is time for us to leave the safety of the school to the EIS Teaching Union from now-on.
For me, this could have been resolved in September 2014 and it has gone-on like a broken record since then because others have not been doing their job.
Now, I want a reasonable solution and a return to work as I should not be paying for this. That will not be easy and I will need some assistance and I have asked Mr McAteer to provide that and have a solution in place by the end of this week.
The solution to fixing the school is set-out below and it hasn't changed in all these years has it? In fact, it was discussed at meeting with Jonathan Moore and Bill Dodds of 17th August 2016: "22) SD stated that it was important that this report was reviewed because the report and the reactions of the respective parties to that report was crucial in his termination by Ogilvie." It's the very same report, by Hugh Mallett, and I am still asking for it to be reviewed! I know what the report says and, believe me, you are all in for the shock of your lives when you read it.
Can I ask that you provide assistance to Mr McAteer, if he needs it, as my situation has been brought about by employees of the Scottish Government?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
We appear to be close to the end of this now. I am expecting a conclusion tomorrow and I suspect that Mr McAteer may need help to achieve that and so I include the current Cabinet Secretary for Education as I presume that to be her responsibility.
Let me start by saying that we have tried the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Law Society of Scotland and the Health and Safety Executive in recent years and the response from each has been disappointing. All are world-renowned with a great heritage, but they can only work when they have leadership from Government and that is something we are struggling with. The Scottish Government's answer to everything is another visual inspection report. How many of these do we have now? It must be six or eight, spanning a six-year timeline. Why can we not sort this out honestly and professionally, within 8-weeks, as all other counties seem to manage to do?
This all started for me back in August 2014 when I returned from holiday and discovered that a mistake had been made in my absence. I said to the Contractor that it was serious and would mean that the design would no longer work because the foundations would be washed-out by groundwater flows; a re-design was therefore required. The Contractor terminated me for that and I have scarcely worked since.
I knew that the problem wasn't going to be fixed and so I reported it to the Hub Client Consortium as a whistle-blower. I told them that the foundations would be washed-out and that the building would subside. No-one did anything to investigate. Since then, we have watched the foundations being washed-out and I have to ask: how much longer do you all think this can go-on for, before a collapse occurs?
So, the Hub Client Consortium were told that the building wouldn't work but they went ahead and built it anyway. Hence, any complaint from a member of the public, or even the professional institutions, that this building somehow isn't right, is robustly denied by all members of that Consortium, including the Scottish Government. I cannot say that I have ever come across this before, anywhere in the world, and it is a really worrying portent for the future of engineering in this country.
As I have mentioned many times now, last summer, the Surfside apartment building in Florida collapsed from the bottom due, it is thought, to the foundations being washed-out by groundwater flows. The basement car-park of that building would fill-up with a few inches of water from time to time before the water receded, leaving a thin layer of sand behind. Do we have the same problem at Brimmond School? I think we do and I have recently asked that question to expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers and if anyone can answer it, it will be them. I have to ask though, is that not what Holyrood should be doing for us and was that not its primary purpose all these years ago?
So, when you look at Brimmond School, please don't assume that it is safe and that nothing is going to happen because you have a few visual inspection reports to give you comfort. I assume that another Surfside is going to happen because that is what all of the engineering evidence points to and that is what I have been explaining to everyone for the past number of years.
If I am removed from this investigation tomorrow, what do the rest of you do to continue from here? I am saying that we are heading for another Surfside collapse and everyone else appears to be saying that there is nothing to worry about. We cannot get a more dichotomous situation that that and so what do we do to resolve it? I have mentioned Hugh Mallett from BuroHappold a number of times now. He is not only an engineer whose seniority is on a par with anyone I can give you from the American Society of Civil Engineers, but he is the engineer with design liability for Brimmond School and so only he has the authority to decide who is right and who is wrong, although I think that we all know the answer to that already, don't we? Why doesn't somebody just ask him?
Hugh Mallett has given an opinion on this building several times; once in 2014 (and I have read that report) and again in 2018. I would urge all of you to throw the visual inspection reports in the bin and seek his advice. As I suggested yesterday, his opinion is considerably more pessimistic than anything I have provided so far and so you are all in for a wake-up call. I have asked the ICE to investigate the visual inspection reports by Fairhurst and Cundall which I believe to be untrue and I presume that they are doing that? I haven't heard anything from them in this regard, one way or the other. I think the ICE should be pursued for an answer on this as we are all accepting these reports as factually correct and I have pointed-out that they are far from that and so they can either be corrected and re-submitted, or withdrawn? I don't know how many times I have to ask the ICE to do this, but can they just respond please? I attach them again below.
As far as the Press is concerned, I am fairly ambivalent about that. I think if it were to appear again, then it should appear as a really in-depth 3 or 4 page investigation in a Sunday newspaper. I am certainly wanting to get this concluded tomorrow, but the Press coverage can wait and whether it happens, or not, is not of any immediate concern to me either way.
Presumably, when I am removed from this investigation then yourself, Gary McAteer and Bob Matheson will be removed also and that will leave only the Cabinet Secretary and the EIS Teaching Union to take this forward from here, presumably with Hugh Mallett? But, we can leave that for them to work-out.
Finally, undernoted is the Email which started the whistleblowing initiative which has subsequently turned into such a failure. You have seen this before - I'm sure that everyone has. I am saying to Harper MacLeod: 'don't speak to Ogilvie as they don't listen, speak to Fairhurst's geotechnical engineers as they are the experts'. For whatever reason, Harper MacLeod did the opposite but still managed to charge me over £20,000. This was the only instruction I gave them and they ignored it and predictable chaos has ensued as a result. Hence, the events of the past 8-years have been needless, haven't they? This is not the way whistle-blowing works in the rest of the UK, nor indeed the rest of the world. What more can I say?
There is no need to confirm or to answer this Email. I think we all need to just get me removed by tomorrow, at long last, and leave it to the others to take it forward from here.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
To: Bruce Caldow, Harper MacLeod
Date: 13th September 2014
Bruce,
Ogilvie's final letter to me was dated 10th September. These photographs were taken on 11th September and show that the process of subsidence has already started. The cracks in the soil in then foreground of each photograph mark the edge of the 5m deep trench which was excavated in the search for contamination. No contamination was found, but the soils within these trenches will now be subject to 'inundation, soil collapse and subsidence'. What you are seeing now will worsen during the winter months when the water table level rises and the moisture content of the surface soils increase. The consistence of the soils within the trenches will soften to the extent that, in places, the soils will have the consistency of a slurry. It is therefore dangerous and it should be recognised, discussed and recorded now. These photographs will allow this process to get started.
As the letters show, I have discussed this over numerous iterations with Ogilvie's senior management. There is no recognition from them, either in writing or verbally, that there is a problem and so they have no intention of putting any remedial actions into place. Ogilvie's Construction Director appears to have an entrenched view that subsidence will not occur. Experience shows that in situations like this either nothing is done by the contractor, or some reluctant and half-hearted remedial work is done at the last minute which will not solve the problem.
Aberdeen City Council's geotechnical advisers are Fairhurst and Partners. They will understand what has happened and they will be able provide independent advice to Aberdeen City Council.
From my personal point of view, I wanted to resolve this as an employee of Ogilvie and I wanted to finish the project and ensure that it was successful. 'Whistleblowing' is not therefore something that I chose to do, but something that I have been forced into doing. How else can I deal with an employer like Ogilvie? Surely employees should be able to raise concerns about engineering, especially on government funded projects, without fear of being of being terminated on the fabricated grounds of 'poor communication skills'.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
I received the following in relation to the analogy I have made between Brimmond School and the Surfside apartment building in Florida, which collapsed last summer.
That investigation is being carried-out by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and they have not issued their findings yet and so this information is provisional.
It is understood that the collapse was caused by 'liquefaction' of the soils surrounding the piled foundation. Liquefaction is not a term I have used before, but it means the same as upwelling water, running sand, heave, artesian conditions etc all of which I have used and if you understand one of these terms, then you will understand them all. They all mean essentially the same thing and that is: 'flowing soil'.
That collapse took 40-years of progressive degradation of the soil due to the effects of tidal water and what I have previously said is that, at Brimmond School, the process of degradation due to the effects of artesian conditions is a lot faster and so collapse will occur a lot sooner.
If any further clarification is required, the Institution of Civil Engineers who are copied-in to this Email can provide it.
I am expecting to hear from Mr McAteer later today.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Sir,
I have no doubt that Ms Baillie and Mr McAteer are doing all they can to resolve this but the sticking point appears to be: 'Are these Visual Inspection Reports (copied to you on Thursday) competent, or not'.
You are the professional institution under whose auspices these reports were produced; your members have been paid for them and so it falls to you to audit them. I have asked you to do that and I presume that the others support that initiative.
I attach the Soil Investigation Report with this Email which was produced by the same company, Fairhurst of Aberdeen. Reconcile the Soil Investigation Report against the Visual Inspection Reports and let us all know what you find, please.
As I explained to Ms Baillie last week, my preference is to avoid going back to the Press and so I would respectfully ask that your institution carries-out the proper forensic examination that this case deserves and that you explain your findings to all of the parties that are involved.
As yesterday's Email to Ms Baillie explained, when a building fails from the bottom the failure can be catastrophic and it can occur without warning. There were hardly any warning signs at Surfside, but the warning signs are Brimmond are very clear, aren't they.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Dunlop,
I contacted you several months ago about this case and you recommended I contact the SLCC and so I did that at the weekend and my Email to them is trailing below. I have contacted them twice before and they didn't do anything, but we'll see if they do something this time.
All I can say is that I am astounded to see the Scottish legal profession in such a mess just now and I would not have thought this possible 10-years ago. Everything is ignored or answered with a holding reply. Nothing ever gets done. I don't know what the problem is but it's as if Holyrood parliamentarians have you all at the end of a short rope.
Although my intention is to get out of this quickly without going back to the Press, I am angry at the conduct of your profession over the years and a good investigative piece in a Sunday paper would do us, the public, the world of good just now.
As I explain below, this will be sorted-out with a telephone call to Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold. I wonder how long it will take those at Holyrood to instruct that? Once the call is made, they can get-on with fixing the school properly and I can leave this dreadful period of my life behind me.
There is no need to answer this Email - as long as someone speaks to Hugh Mallett. Hopefully, that has been done already? I have spoken to him before and he will sort this out instantly. He will provide the expert opinion, from the engineer with design liability for the project, that everyone has been anticipating for the past 8-years and he will probably do it free of charge!
I expect to be proven entirely correct.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
Today's the end of the month and that's the closing date for my settlement and return to work. Can I come I to see you on Friday and get that agreed?
We can leave the rest of them to sort this out themselves now.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Ms Somerville,
I received a machine generated response yesterday, reference number is 202200302799, saying that I will receive an answer from the Scottish Government.
Please note that I do not require a response now. The ongoing safety of Brimmond School is your responsibility and I have asked to see Mr McAteer on Friday to remove myself from any further involvement in this case.
The roadmap to solving this problem couldn't be simpler, I have explained it to you and everyone else several times now and it doesn't involve writing to me.
The tragedy of this is that had it been investigated straight away, the rectification would have cost nothing and I am sure that everyone understands that by now. The ire directed towards myself over the years, led by your Government, has therefore been misdirected and I'm sure that much is obvious to everyone too?
I have explained to Mr McAteer, and to Jackie Baillie, that my situation has been brought about by the actions of Jonathan Moore who is a senior employee of the Scottish Government and so Mr McAteer will no doubt require the cooperation of Scottish Government Ministers to ensure that my meeting with him on Friday will be conclusive.
I have asked Mr McAteer to confirm a time for the meeting on Friday and so please liaise and cooperate with him beforehand and provide whatever assistance he needs.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl,
Now that we are communicating with the Health and Safety Executive and the Institution of Civil Engineers, it is important that the EIS assist and provide any information that you have to these two organizations, who are both here to help you.
It may be the case that I have been portrayed over the years as a single individual who has been complaining about this school, but that may not be true. In fact, I would be very surprised if it were true.
The last time I visited the school, and that was in the winter of 2018, two 10t lorry-loads of sand had been deposited in the main west playground. If, for example, the purpose of that was to build-up the ground to pre-existing levels then that is an example of the 'ground deformation' that I was speaking about earlier. Remember I was saying a few days ago that the settlement at Surfside was in the order of 1-2mm per year? It does look to me as though the settlement at Brimmond is much greater than that and, if so, then that should be reported to the HSE and the ICE.
As I stated earlier, my intention is to leave this investigation now and so I do not want to be copied into anything. Whether the information you have, or I have, amounts to a RIDDOR will be for the HSE to decide, but the ICE are being asked to carry-out a review of the 'visual inspection reports' supplied by their members and so any information you have regarding deformation of the ground and water inundation would be of great assistance to them.
It is extraordinarily difficult for any member of the public to communicate with these organizations when the Government of the day fundamentally disagrees with what you are trying to say, but it is straightforward for a Union to do it. It strikes me that I have passed-over all the information that I have and rather endure another long period of stasis where nothing happens, it may be beneficial to all of us if the EIS took this over from here?
Personally speaking, I think that this school needs to be fixed properly this summer.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl,
I have taken advice on this earlier and so let me run this past you:
The direct answer will come when someone has the gumption to pick-up the phone and speak to Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold. That appears to be a problem somehow. I hope that the problem has been explained to you, because I cannot understand it.
Failing that, although we are told that responsibility for the safety of the school lies with the Scottish Government, the statutory responsibility lies with Aberdeen City Council. As I recall, that's also what I have been told many times now and so I presume that is indeed the case.
Fairhurst are Aberdeen City Council's consulting engineer and they were employed by the Council to produce the Soil Investigation Report and, more recently, the two visual inspection reports. The Soil Investigation Report is fine and no-one is complaining about that; it is the two visual inspection reports that are the problem. The information contained in the reports cannot possibly be true and that is a real problem. I suspect that they are bogus, but that is for the ICE to determine.
The way forward in terms of legislation is for the EIS to request an explanation of the visual inspection reports from the Council. They are marked-up with my comments already and so you can simply request that these comments are answered by Fairhurst, or you can add comments of your own. That would appear to give you an answer very quickly.
As you know, my fear is that this building is going to suddenly partially collapse - quite possibly without warning; Fairhurst will understand that and will respond professionally and we will soon know whether I am right, or wrong.
The only other thing is to reiterate that any photographs you have which show water inundation, soil collapse or subsidence should be sent through to the ICE and the HSE for their consideration. My understanding is that a hydraulic failure leading to ground deformation is a 'limit state failure' which is (probably) a RIDDOR. But, I'm no expert on safety legislation.
Lastly, if this example has taught us anything it is that a single member of the public cannot fight the Scottish Government, with the combined weight of all of our public bodies, all at once. I need some help from those on the ground who, after all, will be most at risk in the event of a building failure.
I am still expecting to be finished by Friday?
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dean Lockhart MSP is involved now. I thought that he was Labour but he's Tory. He's presumably a list MSP but he was a former senior lawyer and sadly that is what this case needs. We're on the very last few days now. I know I have been saying that for a year, but I am pretty certain that we are now at the end.
Once a journalist says that a school could collapse, then everyone dismisses it. They now have opinion from the ASCE and no-one there dismisses it. Hence, it's for them to prove me wrong now and I don't think they will manage to do that.
A shameful performance by the lawyers, including I have to say Beltrami. They are used to getting involved at the end of these cases and determining who pays. Who should have done this instead of that. Who should have investigated. In this case, they were involved from day-one and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they have been complicit somehow.
So, you pay for a lawyer and instead of helping you the lawyer helps the Contractor.
....and he's now on to Ogilvie Construction too.
Dear Mr Baker,
We can either continue waiting on the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council, or we ask the Health and Safety Executive and Institution of Civil Engineers to take a look at this? You both have all the expertise required and your timescales are much faster.
In order to break the log-jam, I have consulted again with experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers and their conclusion is that Brimmond School is suffering from 'Liquefaction'. This is something that usually only occurs during an earthquake, but at Brimmond it is occurring during heavy rain and that makes this building almost unique in terms of world engineering.
I understand your position that the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council are primarily responsible for identifying this, but they may not know what Liquefaction is. I'm pretty sure they don't. Hugh Mallett knows what it is of course, but we do not know his opinion yet.
It may be helpful if we focussed on the precise problem which I have identified and that is Liquefaction. Can we ask Fairhurst's geotechnical team in Aberdeen, and Scotland's Head of Building Standards for their opinions on this? I think that would give us a solution that everyone would accept straight away. Both are involved in a professional capacity in Brimmond School and have reviewed the previous ASCE opinions in detail.
I am just conscious that the school summer shut down will commence soon and that is the ideal time to get this work started.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
The phenomenon we are seeing at Brimmond School is called 'Soil Liquefaction'. I advised the HSE and the ICE of this yesterday and I suggested that they now took responsibility for this investigation. I know that they want the Scottish Government and Aberdeen City Council to do that, but John Wilson and his team at Aberdeen City Council clearly do not know what Soil Liquefaction is and the same goes for the Scottish Government. I therefore think it is time to put experts in charge and both the HSE and the ICE have a heritage of investigating cases like this and, with the school summer shut-down nearly upon us, there is no time left for doing nothing.
The prognosis for this building is therefore just as foreboding as I and many other engineers have explained and my advice to all at the Scottish Government is to consider what you would do if your family members attended this school every day. I do not say that to be inflammatory, but that is the way engineers are trained to think and it tends to work and so I am asking you and your colleagues to do the same.
Soil Liquefaction is one the most hazardous of all construction defects and it should be recognized and dealt with immediately. It is usually caused by an earthquake and so it is extraordinarily rare in this country but, in this case, it is caused by confined artesian water which has been released by mistake. In some ways it is the perfect disaster waiting to happen, so much so that some engineers have never seen anything like it before.
According to the HSE, responsibility lies with the Scottish Government and that is my understanding too. I therefore suggested to the HSE that Scotland's Head of Building Standards, Stephen Garvin and Fairhurst's geotechnical engineering team in Aberdeen review the information which I have provided and they advise whether this is Soil Liquefaction, or not. I have met Stephen Garvin before and I know Fairhurst's geotechnical engineering team vaguely and so they can be left to review this? Both know this project very well and so they can act straight away to provide a professional design review.
I am trying to arrange a closing meeting with Gary McAteer but he is not responding. As I have said many times now, my situation was caused by the actions of the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore and so can you liaise with Mr McAteer please and can one of you let me know when this meeting will take place? All that I will say is that you are all fortunate that I have persevered for long enough to achieve this result. Otherwise, this building would have collapsed and that would have resulted in a tragic outcome for the pupils, teachers and for the building itself.
So, to summarize, what I have suggested is that the HSE and ICE treat this as a report of a RIDDOR made by a competent engineer. Stephen Garvin and Fairhurst will, between them, carry-out the design review and explain the findings. I have suggested the HSE and ICE manage the timeline so that a result is achieved within, I would suggest, 1-week. I think that this is the professional way to close this off now. If we leave anything with Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government, nothing will happen and I think we all know that. This is a suggestion that works and once the design review has been carried-out, we will all know whether I have been correct.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/gayle-gorman-61a3732a
View Gayle Gorman’s profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Gayle has 7 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on …
Works For: Education Scotland, Aberdeen City Council
Connections: 411
Title: Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of …
EXPLORE FURTHER
Gayle Gorman's email & phone | Aberdeen City Council's Direct… rocketreach.co
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA wh… glasgowunihumanrights.blog…
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4 - Yo… www.youtube.com
Bob Innes - Commercial Manager (Semi-Retired) - Ogilvie Cons… uk.linkedin.com
Jonathan Moore - Head of Outcome Agreement Unit - The Scot… uk.linkedin.com
Dear Jackie,
I have suggested to the EIS that they pursue a proper examination of the safety of the school with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) directly from now-on. The procedure for pursuing this with the HSE is straightforward; they just report it as a RIDDOR and use the 'limit state' provisions of Design Standard EC7, ASCE comments and opinions and some photographs for justification. They can request to see the existing geotechnical design review by Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold and that will give them the opinion of a world-renowned geotechnical expert and that can all be achieved within a few days, certainly by the end of this week.
If you cast your mind back to the events leading up to the rectification of Edinburgh Sick Kids Hospital in Edinburgh, it was the Union UNISON which ensured that building was fixed. A member of the public would never have achieved that result against all of the vested interests which existed at the time and we are in the same position at Brimmond School. So, we can leave everything to the the EIS now and they can decide whether to pursue it from here, or not.
I have asked for a closing meeting with Gary McAteer on Friday 10th June. As you know, I am looking to the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore for responsibility for the situation that I have been left in. The reason I say that is because myself and Mr McAteer attended a meeting in August 2016 with Mr Moore and the record of that meeting is trailing (you have seen it many times before). Mr Moore is now employed by the Scottish Government as Head of Outcome Agreement Unit and I have asked Mr McAteer to consult with him today, if he hasn't done so already, to get my outcome agreed before I meet with him on Friday.
I provided information at that meeting which, if Mr Moore had investigated properly at the time, would have resulted in the Contractor being called-back to fix the school. The costs would have been paid either by the Contractor himself, or by his professional indemnity insurer. Because Mr Moore didn't carry-out a proper investigation, he only carried-out a visual inspection report, the Contractor and his insurer will no longer pay and that avenue is now closed. Therefore, what should have remained the Contractor's liability is now the Scottish Government's liability. Also, the costs will now be greater than they would have been in 2016 because the ground has been progressively weakened since then. Equally, I have suffered great losses over the years as a result of that meeting.
I proceeded to carry-out the checks myself and I submitted the majority of my evidence in late 2017 and it is overwhelming. Since 2017, Hub has provided another 3No visual inspection reports which I have recently described as 'bogus'. That's the way it has stood for the past 6-months, without movement, and it is a situation which clearly cannot remain and that is why I am suggesting the EIS should take this over now. Everything I set-out in these minutes has turned-out to be true and everything set-out by Mr Moore has turned-out to be untrue and we should all take a moment to think about that situation. Is that really what the public should expect from their Government? I attach Mr Moore's subsequent letters to me with this Email and I think we should let them speak for themselves.
Dear Stephen
Many thanks for your email. As Mr McAteer has been copied in to this correspondence, he will have seen your request for a meeting and will I hope respond to you directly.
Best wishes
Jackie
Dear Jackie,
Let me clarify what is meant by 'professional indemnity insurance', as it will help everyone's understanding just now:
All contractors have to carry professional indemnity insurance and it covers honest mistakes made by professionals, whether they be design mistakes or construction mistakes. It exists to protect the client and ensure that if a mistake is found, then no matter how serious the mistake has been, there will always be ring-fenced money available from an outside source to rectify it.
The deep excavation at Brimmond School was such an honest mistake made by a professional and that has always been my understanding of it. The Scottish Government just had to identify the mistake and it would have been rectified at no cost to the public, by the Contractors insurer. The record of meeting shows that the mistake was identified, by myself, in August 2016. It previously had been identified to Harper Macleod away back in September 2014 and so it was well-known to the Hub Consortium.
However, when Mr Moore said that he had checked the design and that he was satisfied that it was compliant, that means that any future claims made under professional indemnity insurance will be void. It seems likely to me that the Scottish Government alone will be faced with the cost of fixing this and, as I said earlier, that will be prohibitively expensive.
This is the reason for interminable delay over the past 6-years. As you can imagine, it is now a real mess.
I hope this has helped. It is the public who stand to pay financially for this of course but no-one has paid more than I have until now and that is the situation we are looking to bring to a close this Friday.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
I just received the trailing Email from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), copied to the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) and it is self-explanatory. Sadly, although the HSE and the ICE have all of the experience and resources needed to resolve this to an outcome, they cannot and that duty falls to Aberdeen City Council. Professor Cole observed this too - it is the Council that has the statutory duty. That said, the over-arching duty is with the Scottish Government as per the Education Scotland Act and so I propose to leave that with the Cabinet Minister to resolve with the Council and perhaps with the EIS. There is really nothing more that I, the HSE or the ICE can do to help, we have all tried but only the Cabinet Minister can lead this to an outcome from here.
As far as my situation is concerned, the responsibility for that lies with the Scottish Government. I have yet to receive confirmation of Friday's meeting from Mr McAteer and he will only contact me when he has an outcome already agreed. As I explained yesterday, he will require guidance from the Scottish Government and so can I leave that with the Cabinet Minister to liaise with Mr McAteer so that he is aware of what outcome he is permitted to discuss? Endlessly waiting for Cabinet Ministers to respond is why we are all in this mess and so if you are able to pursue an urgent response from her, that would be most helpful. This is now over for me and I want to get back to work now. It looks as if the HSE and the ICE understand that and so I am asking the Scottish Government to do the same.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Gary, Jackie and Ms Somerville,
Has tomorrow's meeting been scheduled yet? Mr McAteer - can you advise me, please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie and Gary,
I copy this to everyone as I presume that you all have a part to play in resolving this now. In most countries in the world, such an investigation is carried-out by one or two Civil-Servants. In Scotland, it seems to take in excess of thirty of you, many hanging-on to six-figure salaries and high five-figure salaries and, perhaps largely because of that, nothing ever gets done.
I asked Mr McAteer yesterday what the hold-up was and I asked him to progress my case to a conclusion within the next few days. He hasn't responded. He will require assistance from Holyrood and the Scottish Civil-Service and if he is not receiving that, and presumably he is not, can you explain to me why that is still the case? What, specifically, is the hold-up?
The Health and Safety Executive's contribution early last week confirmed that the safety of the school is the responsibility of Aberdeen City Council and therefore, from the Education Scotland Act 1980, the Scottish Government. Can I ask why they have had to explain that to all of you? Why does the Cabinet Minister not know that and why do you not know that? I attach John Wilson's letter which is the summation of Aberdeen City Council/Scottish Government's investigative work so far. Are you all going to produce a copy of this letter in the event of an accident at the school and say: 'Not me'.
Let me repeat that a 'limit state failure' occurred in November 2015 and, since then, the Council and the Scottish Government have been in breach of criminal law. If you look at the proceedings at the ongoing Grenfell Inquiry, then you will understand that it is not a position that would be easily defensible. 'Not me' will not work and I am sick and tired of explaining that to all of you.
The specific fault that I have described is 'Liquefaction of Soil' and you will be able to view a number of short videos on-line and the engineering involved is not complex; in fact in one of the videos it is explained to school children. All that I will repeat is that that when a failure occurs, the investigating authority will ask you: 'When were you aware of this and what did you do to investigate?' I keep saying this to you and you never respond; it's as if you've heard it all before. What I can promise you all is that when an accident occurs, then it will live with you for the rest of your life and any experienced civil-engineer will tell you that.
When we have thirty or more Scottish Civil-Servants covering each other's backs then that is a situation that can only be resolved by the Cabinet Minister and the First Minister and I accept that. What I would ask you to concentrate your efforts on is finding a solution for your constituent. Do not leave everything to Mr McAteer, please. I have not been prescriptive in my dealings with him and I will leave him to work-out a satisfactory solution, but he cannot do it on his own and he will need your help.
I am not aware of another case like this one, certainly not in the developed world and I do think there is a case to be made for reviewing a great number of things relating to public procurement of engineering in Scotland and if that occurs to me, then it will presumably occur to all the rest of you too? I attach another copy of Hub's only correspondence and it is shocking; I very much doubt if this would be acceptable anywhere else in the world and, certainly in terms of engineering, you have to wonder what kind of country Scotland is turning into when letters like this are issued by the Civil-Service?
As you may have guessed, I am becoming increasingly frustrated by this ongoing silence and so can you do all you can to assist Mr McAteer and can one of you, or either of you, let me know when this will be resolved, please? As I have explained before, it is entirely the responsibility of Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government and so Mr McAteer cannot do anything without your help.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
OK Jackie thanks.
A 'limit-state' was reached in 2015 and that is incredibly serious. Any expert engineer will confirm this. I am aware that a variety of people from the Scottish Government and ACC disagree; none of them though are engineers, they have no evidence and they disagree because that will be accepted in Scotland. That much has been obvious to me since 2016 and I am sure that it is obvious to everyone by now. God only knows why you are still accepting this and it brings us back to John Swinney's letter (attached) and to BuroHappold's opinion. Can you request this opinion is issued please? I must have asked for this more than a dozen times now and you keep ignoring me.
Specifically, when you say that you have checked something and that it is OK, then you must have done that. You cannot just accept someone's word for it and that situation is reflected in the many ASCE precedent cases that I have referred you to over the years. The corollary of that is if an accident occurs then, as I have explained, you are all sucked needlessly into the vortex of another Grenfell scenario and this is potentially more criminal than Grenfell.
With respect to my situation, can I suggest that Jonathan Moore's two letters are reviewed? If it is found that he has mis-led me, then he has mis-led everyone and the Scottish Government, as Mr Moore's employers, are responsible for that.
So, to summarize, all we need to do is ask for BuroHappold's opinion and that solves both problems at once. When you do that, we will get an immediate resolution and I would expect Mr McAteer to see it that way too. He cannot ask and only you can do that and so please ask.
Mr McAteer - please liaise with Jackie on this and ensure that my involvement with this case is finished by the end of this week. If you have not contacted Jackie Baillie, then I find that really disappointing at this stage. If Jackie is struggling with this then I would expect you to be able to assist and to pin-point the key information. I have identified the BuroHappold opinion and I assume that you are in agreement with that? Let me be very clear, it is the previous conduct of Harper Macleod, who did nothing and let this situation develop out of nothing, that we are now all trying to rescue before it is too late. It therefore does not do anyone any good if another lawyer does the same and so please give Jackie all the assistance she requires over the coming days?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
On Sunday, 12 June 2022, 14:07:25 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Dear Stephen
Many thanks for your further email. I am happy to provide assistance to Mr McAteer should he require it.
To date the only correspondence I have had about this is from you. As you know I have tried every avenue open to me to raise the matter with the Scottish Government and with Aberdeen City Council.
Best wishes
Jackie
Dear Jackie,
Let me clarify that the essential pre-requisite for my meeting with Mr McAteer is that the BuroHappold opinion is issued and the meeting simply cannot go-ahead without it.
As I have explained, only you are able to requisition this either from the Council, or from Hub.
I copy-in the Teaching Unions as they can obtain this opinion too, but it will be for the purposes of informing their members who use and depend upon this building every day. I attach Professor Cole's recommendations again; they are on page 244.
I have asked to meet Mr McAteer on Friday 17th June and there is still a lot to be done before then. It sounds as if neither of you has even started yet and that is really disappointing.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
On Sunday, 12 June 2022, 18:58:22 BST, Stephen Dick wrote:
Dear Jackie,
Only when the BuroHappold opinion is provided, will this case be settled. Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold is a professional and he wants to help, but he needs to be asked. His opinion exists and when it is issued, this will be settled instantly.
He provided one opinion in 2014 which I agreed with and was terminated for so doing and he provided another in 2018. Both the Council and Hub have this opinion but it has not been released. This is the opinion I am asking for.
I expect it to say: "I told you this would happen....what are you going to do now". The potential financial outcome of that would be in the region of £30m and so it is a matter of great public concern.
Can you request this opinion please? I know we have opinions from many others but they are not engineers and they do not carry design liability and so their opinions are frankly irrelevant. What I am asking for is something that should be in the public domain, as recommended by the Cole Inquiry page 244 (attached); it should be available to anyone who asks to see it. It is not information that can or should be covered-up and I am surprised that you are accepting that it is being covered-up.
Nothing will move without this. I will not achieve resolution, Mr McAteer will not be able to do anything and the Teaching Unions will not be able to do anything either. As I said before, an similar scenario is being examined just now at the Grenfell Inquiry and it doesn't get any more serious than that.
It sounds as if you have agreed with Mr McAteer that the politically expedient thing to do is to do nothing. That doesn't suit me or anyone else and so are you able to ask for BuroHappold's opinion, please? Then, as I say, just hand it to Mr McAteer and we will reach a resolution instantly.
Can you ask for this tomorrow, please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
On Sunday, 12 June 2022, 17:58:41 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Dear Stephen
Many thanks for your further email.
As you know I have contacted both Cabinet Secretaries for Education, John Swinney and Shirley Anne Sommerville, in the past and arranged a meeting for you with senior Scottish Government officials. Aberdeen City Council have also been corresponded with and they too have reviewed the construction of the school and considered your concerns.
In all of these interactions, they have not expressed concerns about the school.
I am not an engineer and cannot offer an expert opinion. That said I have engaged with all those with a particular interest in the public sector. I have not ignored you and have repeatedly written on your behalf.
Your previous emails have suggested that the meeting was being arranged by Mr McAteer, yet I can only assume the lack of response to emails is that he has not agreed to this.
I have reached the stage that I do not feel I can be of any further help to you, having exhausted the avenues open to me. Should Mr McAteer wish to contact me then I am happy to try to assist.
Accordingly I will simply note any future emails.
Best wishes
Jackie
Gary,
What we have here is the Jenny Laing/Jackie Baillie Labour Party double act which has bedevilled this case for more than 6-years. By the looks of things, there are several others of that view at the moment.
I want this to be finished on Friday. It seems to me there is more than one way of doing that but I want it finished on Friday. Have a think about that please and get back to me within the next couple of days.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
I have decided to copy everyone in as I consider this situation to be of the utmost public importance. Can you demand that the BuroHappold design review is delivered to you today and if you decide not to do that, let everyone know your reasons for making that decision, please?
I am aware that various Civil-Servants have declared this building safe, but they are not engineers and only BuroHappold has the contractual authority to decide and they say the opposite; they say that it is unsafe and I expect that news will leave a lot of people very angry and looking for answers.
I have copied John Wilson and Gordon Spence at Aberdeen City Council and so they can act without delay. When the review is issued then my position will be vindicated. That means that I have effectively wasted 8-years of my life on this and that will be viewed with great concern by all of you.
As I explained yesterday, I will be removing myself from this investigation at a closing meeting on Friday 17th June with Mr McAteer and that will require you to assist both him and me for a short time. He can bring this to a conclusion and it is relatively simple for him to do that but he requires help from you - can I depend on you to do that?
I mentioned some time ago that a Contract exists between all of the parties that are involved and it can be used to effortlessly provide the information that I am asking for and so I would ask all of you to proceed in accordance with the Contract.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
With respect, I asked you to refer to the Contract and to request the BuroHappold design review be issued today. It must be issued and you only have to ask Aberdeen City Council for it. You appear not to have asked, but are pre-empting their response by suggesting that they will just refuse again. Can you just ask for it as I have suggested, please? They are 'compelled' by the Contract and so it really couldn't be simpler. In fact, it is easier to just do it than it is to make excuses not to do it.
When this design review is issued, it will confirm whether what you write below is truthful, or not and I think we all know the answer to that already?
I have read their opinion before, I agreed with it and that is what led, in 2014, to my termination by the Contractor.
I would expect, at this point, the Teaching Unions to be pursuing this, rather than us. There are several strategies which would retrieve this information, one being page 244 of the Cole Inquiry Report, but the Health and Safety at Work Act would achieve the same result. The Teaching Unions are the employees and so they are entitled to open disclosure of this information and I seem to remember suggesting that to them several times in the past.
So, can you all decide who, if anyone, is going to pursue this from here? It sounds to me as if you do not want to do it and the school teachers and pupils are not your constituents and so there is no responsibility on you to pursue this any further. My suggestion is that the Teaching Unions do that but it is for yourselves to decide. As I have said, I have read the BuroHappold review and I can only say that you are all in for the fright of your lives.
Let me explain the purpose of Friday's closing meeting with Gary McAteer: My contention is that the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore lied during the meeting of 17th August 2016 and that has led to a tragic outcome for the school and for myself. Gary McAteer attended that meeting and I have provided the record of the meeting many times, but it is attached again below.
I have had to spend the past 6-years establishing the facts and presenting them in anticipation that a closing meeting would take place with Mr McAteer. This is the meeting that I am referring to on Friday.
I have explained that the decisions taken by Mr Moore at that meeting were needless and stand to cost the Scottish public up to £30m, but he has cost me money too and the purpose of the meeting is to recover these losses and for me to be returned to work. I noticed that the Health and Safety Executive noticed this point very quickly, but it appears to have escaped all of the rest of you.
I believe that Mr McAteer understands the purpose of the meeting but he requires your help to establish Jonathan Moore's and therefore the Scottish Government's culpability. It is undoubtedly a sensitive subject and that is why Mr McAteer is treading carefully at the moment.
Is the above clear? Both myself and Mr McAteer do require your assistance. I don't believe that any of us should be lied to whether that be by Senior Civil-Servants or Cabinet Ministers, especially when that results in needlessly tragic consequences for all of us. Therefore, can you liaise with Mr McAteer and can one of you confirm the meeting on Friday, please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
The undernoted items may be useful to the Teaching Unions, or whoever else takes this forward from here:
1. BuroHappold will not respond directly to you, or to anyone else, and will respond only via their client who are the Hub Client Consortium comprising Aberdeen City Council and Hub. Therefore, direct all requests for information to them, please.
2. Minute 22 below refers to the original BuroHappold review 2014 and they went-on to issue a further review in 2018. Both of these reviews will confirm the veracity of my concerns. Aberdeen City Council have them and, as I understand it, must provide them.
3. These are the design reviews, produced by their Hugh Mallett, that I have referred to continually over the years. They extend to many pages and they contain all the required information. Forget the visual inspection reports and just ask for these.
Finally, when we walked-out of the 2016 meeting with Mr Moore and Mr Dodds, Gary McAteer turned to me and said: "I think this could take some time to sort-out". I though he meant that it could take a few months, instead of a few weeks. It turns out it has taken six-years!
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
I have not heard anything from Mr McAteer about Friday's meeting. He will only contact me when he has something to say and so he will require instruction to be given by a Cabinet Minister either today, or tomorrow at the latest.
We should be looking at Friday as the end-date for my involvement in this case and the same goes for yourself, Bob Matheson and Gary McAteer. Thereafter, the others can take over as they wish.
My experience has been that when we get to the stage we are at now, the only credible and ethical route to take is for everyone, collectively, to conclude instead of making excuses not to conclude.
I include Mr Wilson and Mr Spence in the circulation, to keep the Council informed. The Council's duties with respect to administering the Contract and the distribution of Hugh Mallett's expert opinions are set-out as trailing.
I will wait until I hear from Mr McAteer.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
I have not received confirmation of a meeting date from Mr McAteer. Just let me be clear - my complaint is about Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government and so we are seeking redress from the Scottish Government. We are not waiting on anyone else.
Mr McAteer can do nothing without guidance, and nor can I, and so please advise when the Scottish Government's guidance will be issued? I was expecting it to be issued either yesterday, or today. Maybe is has been, but I haven't received anything yet?
Dear Ms Somerville,
Two things:
1. I presume that Hugh Mallett of BuroHappld has explained to you, via his client Aberdeen City Council and Hub, the error which has been built into this building. There is a candour about Hugh Mallett and he advises several world governments on these matters. You are fortunate to be able to ask for his guidance and it would be prudent to follow his advice and to do that straight away.
2. The ongoing proceedings at the Grenfell Inquiry is a reminder that, when an accident occurs, public opinion and the law will not support you, or anyone other civil-servant who has been made aware of this error, who has been warned of the likely outcome and who has done nothing to rectify it.
Therefore, can you both communicate with each other and with Mr McAteer to ensure that he is provided with sufficient guidance - and can you do that urgently, please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Currie and Brown provide the funding. Scottish Futures Trust/Hub are like PFI and the money comes from the private sector. Currie and Brown were always involved in PFI and so are involved in SFT/Hub nowadays....
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/fraser-innes-31952b11b
Fraser Innes - Operational Director - hub North Scotland | LinkedIn Fraser Innes Operational Director at hub North Scotland Limited Greater Aberdeen Area131 …
Works For: Hub North Scotland
Connections: 131
Title: Operational Director at hub …
Location: Greater Aberdeen Area
EXPLORE FURTHER
Mike Felton - Senior Director - Currie & Brown | LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Jackie Baillie (@jackiebmsp) / Twitter twitter.com
Kevin Stewart SNP (@KevinStewartSNP) / Twitter twitter.com
Bruce Caldow - Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Ogilvie Construction Ltd | LinkedIn linkedin.com
Dear Jackie and Gary,
1. I sent two Emails to Fraser Innes of Hub last week; one on Thursday and another on Friday. I noticed the second of the two was deleted from my account within a couple of minutes and I watched as it happened. Audit Scotland confirmed that they had received it and I assume that everybody else did, but it sounds like some really desperate stuff is going-on just now. I've just changed my password to a 'very-strong' one and so that may help in the short-term.
2. The Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse is the correct analogy to use. When a mistake is made and it results in an under-design of this magnitude and when bogus assurances are issued that it has been checked and is safe, then catastrophic failure is inevitable. It is not a matter of 'if' it will happen, it is 'when' it will happen. The Hyatt Regency was doomed for failure and Brimmond School is doomed for failure for the same reasons. Grenfell is not the same as there are thousands of buildings worldwide like Grenfell and, statistically, the chances of one of them catching fire are remote. However, it's been a useful analogy because it demonstrates how these situations change entirely once an accident occurs. I understand, for example, that 30-40 people have already been interviewed under Police caution at Grenfell and so charges will likely follow soon after the Inquiry concludes.
3. The questions for Stephen Garvin are: Does this comply with EC7?; Does it need to be fixed and how do you fix it? It looks inevitable that I will be proven correct and the chances of Hugh Mallett disagreeing with me or with any of the others are, frankly, close to zero.
4. Can the meeting with Mr McAteer be arranged for this week please? I do not want this to be delayed any longer as that brings us into the Holyrood recess. I will leave the settlement to Mr McAteer to work-out but I want to be working again very soon in any country in the world, except Scotland. Criticism can be made of the Contractor, Harper MacLeod, Hub, Scottish Building Standards, Education Scotland and the Council of course, but my situation was caused by Jonathan Moore and I've been consistent about that over the years.
The next few days are crucial as far as fixing the school is concerned and if the decision is not taken by mid-week, then it is not going to happen. I've worked with other governments who could manage situations like this, but our government doesn't have a clue. I've not copied-in the Teaching Unions but I'm sure that they are aware that, in the event of an accident next winter, the question that will be asked of them (and of everyone else) is 'how long have you known about this and what have you done to investigate?'
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
Thanks for that. I've included the others so that I communicate the up to date situation to all of the parties that are involved.
The BuroHappold review can only be delivered to you via the client, who is Fraser Innes of Hub North Scotland. He has the review and I asked him to deliver it to both yourself and Cabinet Minister last week. If he hasn't done that, it can only mean that the Cabinet Minister has told him not to give it to you and that is astonishing. Can I suggest that the Cabinet Minister is shown the CDM Regulations which explain the specific legal duties that places upon both herself and Mr Innes? At this point, there is really no excuse for this ignorance of the law.
As you know, a great precedent for this case is the 'Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse'. There, a mistake was made during construction and the project engineer said that he had checked it and it was fine. It turns-out he was lying and 2-years later, a sudden collapse occurred which killed 114No people. At Brimmond, a mistake was made during construction and we are trying to prevent a sudden collapse from occurring. We know that the project engineer has checked it properly this time and no-one is in any doubt about that; all that we want to know is what he said? Did he say it was fine? Presumably, the Cabinet Minister knows the answer to that but is not allowing you, or any of the rest of us, to be told. Perhaps the Cabinet Minister should consider what she would do if members of her own family attended this school?
If Mr Innes did not issue anything to you, that suggests to me that the building is actually unsafe and was confirmed so by Hugh Mallett in 2018. He will not have been the first expert engineer to say that, he will be the forty-fifth to say it and I'm sure that he knows that, as all the rest of us do by now. This building is unsafe and rather than continue covering it up, the public would expect it to be fixed, this summer, before the schools go-back. That is what Holyrood is supposed to do and other governments can manage these situations and it is time for the Scottish Government to step-up and do the same.
That brings us on to the other precedent case, which is Grenfell Towers. There, 30-40 individuals have already been interviewed under Police caution and the expectation is that some of them will be charged upon conclusion of the current Inquiry. It has been established that the building was unsafe and it is expected that those responsible for knowing that, and for covering it up, will face charges as a result.
Regarding Mr McAteer - I suspect that he will only contact us, and he may only contact me, when he has a solution in place and, again, he will be waiting on direction from the Cabinet Minister for that. Let me be very clear though, I have had to spend years of my life on this and that has been due to the misfeasance primarily of the Scottish Government's Jonathan Moore, but also of several others all of whom have held-on to their jobs and one or two have even been promoted as a result. In some jurisdictions, they would receive jail-time but in Scotland they are promoted. Hence, I have asked Mr McAteer to have it resolved by Friday.
I appreciate that you are putting a lot of effort into this just now and so let's both of us hope that it pays-off and that we can conclude at the end of this week. Between yourself and Bob Matheson, I think you have both contributed to this for a combined duration of nearly 11-years now, which is truly astounding. If we weren't dealing with such obtuse people, it could have been finished within 8-weeks!
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
I haven't heard anything from Mr McAteer regarding Friday's meeting and that can only mean that he has not received any guidance from the Cabinet Minister yet. As you can imagine, that is very disappointing.
Are you able to ask the Cabinet Minister to provide this guidance, please? As you know, my contention is that my present situation was caused entirely by Jonathan Moore, who is a senior employee of the Scottish Government.
After Friday, we can hand this over to the Teaching Unions to pursue as they wish. Frankly, that is the only course of action that works from here. I have offered them help in the past, as has Bob Matheson and so we can leave it up to them.
What I would say to everyone is that we have reached this point due to my investigative work and persistence. In return for that, I am asking for help in returning to a normal life. Is that agreed?
My intention is to leave everything to Mr McAteer to sort-out but he will need guidance and he will need time, or he can do nothing.
I have copied-in the Cabinet Minister and this is for her information and urgent action.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
George - I'm going in to see Gary McAteer next Wednesday. So, we've reached the end at last. I'll let you know next week how it all goes. There are three things on the agenda: a payment for me, a job for me and a payment for yourself and Stuart Campbell.
I wouldn't be surprised if Harper MacLeod were being made to pay this. That's just my thoughts and I doubt if McAteer will tell me, but it's certainly possible, in which case it will be great news for you.
Dear Jackie and Bob,
I had a message last night from Natalie at Beltrami saying that Gary McAteer wanted to see me next Wednesday and so we are inching forward.
My strategy is to remove myself, and both of you, by the end of term and I'll write a closing Email at the end of next week handing this over to the EIS. They've got the resources for this and it is time they started doing their job. Liaising with Stephen Garvin and all the rest of it and attending meetings is for them.
I understand only a fraction of what is going-on but I think that Harper MacLeod are coming under great pressure just now and that is great news. I don't have any real axe to grind with the Contractor who were just doing what Contractors do but when we are at a stage in Scotland when the public cannot trust lawyers, then that is really unacceptable and you can both see the consequences of that.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Natalie,
I just sent you a list of three items which, when they are agreed, will settle this. Can Gary take a look at that please? That is all I want to discuss and whether that be by phone or at a meeting is all the same to me.
2,00pm is fine but please make sure that we are able to reach an agreed outcome. As I explained half an hour ago, I have no problem with Beltrami, but I am the client and that's a concept that I think all lawyers are having problems with at the moment.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Innes,
Thank-you for your response.
The CDM Regulations were introduced to address shortcomings in UK construction law which were identified by the 1981 Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse in the USA. Similar legislation was introduced in many different counties at around the same time and it was to prevent situations where client bodies could say 'not me' in the event of an accident.
You are the lead-client for Brimmond School; it not the Council or the Scottish Government and your duties under CDM are as follows:
relevant information is prepared and provided to other dutyholders.
the principal designer and principal contractor carry out their duties.
This extract is taken straight from the CDM Regulations and your duties are to provide the principal designer, Hugh Mallett's opinion to the other dutyholders and to answer my comments on the visual inspection reports by Fairhurst and Cundall and provide that also to the other dutyholders. That is all I asked you to do.
Whether you elect to do it or not is for you to decide. All that I will say that is by not doing it, you would appear to be in breach of the law.
If you are keeping up-to-date with the news, you will have noticed that a similar 'not me' scenario is currently being examined at the Grenfell Inquiry. Grenfell Tower was on the borderline of compliance and was thought, statistically, unlikely to catch fire, but it did happen. Brimmond is non-compliant and on the same statistical basis it will collapse and, in fact, the first 'limit-state' failure has already occurred. If you are waiting for the first sign of structural failure to occur (see final page of Fairhurst's visual inspection report attached), then that would be another breach of the law.
This is all explained by the geotechnical experts of the American Society of Civil Engineers and their opinions are attached and it is also explained in Design Standard, EC7. I presume that you are already familiar with both of these items and that you have seen them before?
I am a member of the public and I am not a 'dutyholder' in terms of CDM, or the Health and Safety at Work Act. As I understand it, some of the rest of you are and so perhaps you would care to take this forward to an outcome with Mr Innes? All he is saying here is 'not me' and the law is firmly against him. The school summer shut-down commences in a few days time and I would therefore urge all of you to pursue this with him, before it is too late.
Thank you,
S. Dick
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022, 11:55:57 BST, Fraser Innes wrote:
Dear Mr Dick
I refer to the emails sent by you to hub North Scotland on 16 and 17 June 2022 concerning the above.
Aberdeen City Council has looked into your concerns and is satisfied the building foundation design complies with the bearing capacities. The council wrote to you on 8 April 2022 to confirm that position and to state there would no further correspondence with you on the matter. The hub North Scotland position is the same as Aberdeen City Council’s and we do not intend to add to what has already been said.
We trust your concerns have been adequately addressed.
Many thanks
Fraser Innes
hub North Scotland
Dear Mr Innes,
Permit me to add a final comment:
You say in your Email: 'Aberdeen City Council has looked into your concerns and is satisfied that the building foundation design complies with the bearing capacities'. Firstly, you are the lead-client and only you have the authority to make statements like this and, in any case, it is not correct, is it.
The required available bearing capacity is 150kN/m2 and so we should be looking for actual available bearing capacities in the range 150kN/m2 - 250kN/m2. The actual available bearing capacity at Brimmond in wet conditions is less than 75kN/m2, which is not even close to the required range.
This data comes from the Brimmond Soil Investigation Report of December 2009 by Fairhurst, who are Hub North Scotland's geotechnical consultant. I attach a copy with this Email but I have to say that a member of the public should not have to keep repeating this.
I have reminded you of the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse several times this week; it was a lesser degree of under-design which caused that sudden collapse to occur and that is why I keep repeating this data, and that example, to all of you.
So, there are two possibilities: you either do all you can to fix the school during this summer shut-down, or you elect to do nothing in which case the building will collapse.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Natalie,
I understand that Garry is back on Monday.
Let him know that I only want to agree a solution to the three items now.
I'm expecting a call at 2.00pm on Wednesday and so that should be our finishing point. If he wants to run anything past me before then, ask him to give me a call.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/lornecrerar
Professor Lorne Crerar CBE - Chairman - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn Professor Lorne Crerar CBE Chairman & Co-Founder at Harper Macleod …
Occupation: Chairman & Co-Founder at Harper Macleod
500+ connections
Title: Chairman & Co-Founder at …
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
EXPLORE FURTHER
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4 - YouTube youtube.com
Rona Cargill - HR Director - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Laura Ann Sheridan - Senior Solicitor - Harper Macleod LLP - LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Stephen Garvin on Twitter: "Last day at @ScotGovBldgStds @scotgov for ... twitter.com
Jackie Baillie (@jackiebmsp) / Twitter twitter.com
Dear Jackie and Bob,
Attention has turned to Bruce Caldow, Euan Pirie and Lorne Crerar of Harper MacLeod and that is good news. Also, someone has at last reminded Stephen Garvin that his job is to lead Building Standards and get things done.
The Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse is being reviewed and that is more good news. This has been used as a precedent case in construction law courts all over the world for decades now and this case is as close to it as you are ever going to get.
I'll let you both know how I get-on on Wednesday although I am looking for, and expecting, it to be concluded then. That will have taken 95-months, and it could have been agreed inside 1 to 2-months, couldn't it.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Delayed for a few days George......
OK, Natalie - make it on Monday 4th July, please.
Ask him to call me at home if he wants to discuss anything before then.
I understand they're in a mess just now - Lorne Crerar, John Swinney, Stephen Garvin and all the rest of them. That must mean that I'm right and that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Natalie,
One thing I would appreciate speaking to Mr McAteer about this week is my future employment and I do not expect the current situation to sustain now that I have been proven correct.
This will presumably require Mr Swinney's involvement?
The other two items can wait until Monday.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl,
I am expecting to end my involvement in this case by early next week and that may end the involvement of Jackie Baillie and Bob Matheson and so I want to now hand responsibility over to the EIS. I have likened this case in the past to Edinburgh Sick Kids Hospital, which was led to a conclusion by the Union UNISON and they did it themselves without any need for members of the public to become involved. It is for the EIS to decide what they want to do of course and all that I can do at this stage is point you in the direction of what I consider to be a precedent case. What Edinburgh Sick Kids proved is that these cases can be solved by Union involvement and what this case proves is that they cannot be solved by members of the public working alone. That is not the way it should be, but my failure to resolve this has not been due to lack of effort and so with that in mind, it is now time to hand-over to you.
There is an hour long documentary due to be aired soon on BBC2 which is called: 'Why Buildings Collapse'. It was due to be aired on Tuesday night but was cancelled due to over-running tennis coverage and so I expect it to be re-scheduled soon. The programme marks a year since the collapse of Champlain Towers in Florida, which I have spoken about several times now. Although a thorough Federal investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) into the cause of the collapse is still approximately 2-years from concluding, a US Judge has recently agreed a settlement based on the following:
"Although the cause of the collapse has not yet been determined, various parties will be found liable. Moreover, it is unlikely the collapse was caused by one specific event or structural failure. The collapse was likely caused by a combination of structural failures that may or may not have been triggered by soil liquefaction. These parties may include the Champlain Tower Condominium association along with the numerous contractors, subcontractors, engineers, and architects who have worked on the Champlain Tower and its neighboring condominiums".
The judge was convinced that reaching an early settlement was crucial for the public interest and his decision was based on the short explanation above. So, the insurance companies of all of the parties that were involved have settled already, presumably in the expectation that they would stand to lose more if they delayed. Outcomes are unpredictable of course and arguably they could have refused and a few of them may have ended-up being vindicated in the end, but each one decided not to do that and to settle instead. That for me is the proper use of the legal profession - to cut across all hindrances and conclude for the public interest.
The judge decided that a number of organizations knew about pre-existing problems and failed to act appropriately, although he accepted that they had not been warned that 'liquefaction' was occurring and no-one was advised that the problems which were identified could lead to a catastrophic collapse. That is where Brimmond School is different because you have all been warned that 'liquefaction' is occurring and that collapse is the only possible outcome of that. So, we are not speaking about a 'risk' of collapse; we are instead speaking of collapse as the inevitable end-point for which there may be no prior warning. The attached photographs all show the classic symptoms of liquefaction. There were no photographs of liquefaction at Champlain Towers but it has been considered as the most likely cause of collapse at this stage along with other possible contributory causes. At Brimmond, you have the photographs and you have the opinions of experts and so there can be no excuses for doing nothing and letting a collapse occur.
Is it acceptable that everyone says 'not me' when confronted with this problem and defers instead to John Wilson of Aberdeen City Council? They used to defer to Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government but recently it has been to John Wilson. John Wilson does what Jonathan Moore used to do and says: 'The Contractor and his Engineer say that the bearing capacities are fine'. John Wilson is a Chief Accountant and he evidently understands little of this subject; surely we all know that by now? Somehow, the EIS have allowed this charade to continue without providing any assistance to me to hasten a proper investigation and you have done that year after year for three years now. I am therefore handing-over to the EIS and whether or not the school is fixed, how it is fixed and when, is for your organization to determine from here and you may do that in the normal way by asking the questions I have asked and demanding answers from the engineering experts I have identified.
I must say that I have struggled over the years to understand the EIS's position. Usually, when one of the parties that should be closely involved refuses, it is because they don't understand the problem, or because they have never been involved in a fatal accident, but neither is the case with the EIS. All that I would observe is that by continuing to do nothing, you are accepting that more accountability than is necessary will be placed upon your shoulders in the event of an accident and if you are all looking towards John Wilson for engineering guidance, then I would urge you not to do that. I have given you the opinion of the UK's foremost hydro-geotechnical engineer, and the opinions of many others of high standing in the world of engineering and they all say the opposite to Mr Wilson. Does that not strike you as strange? What do you think any judge would recommend you do in that type of situation? John Wilson's explanation is politically expedient, but it is not correct and I'm sure that we all know that by now.
I thought it best to send you this so that you receive it in plenty of time for the start of the school holiday and if you elect to have the school fixed during the summer than you will need plenty of time to get that done. If you get the chance to watch the BBC documentary, then please do that. I would expect it to highlight many differences in approach not least that in the USA, the Government governs transparently whilst in Scotland we are putting the most vulnerable members of our society in harms way while we defer, not to reputable independent experts like NIST, but to John Wilson. What I am suggesting is that if we have problems with the honesty and accountability of the organization running the procurement of our schools and other public buildings, then you recognize that before it is too late and do something about it, as UNISON have done.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
Can you sent the letter today please? In most jurisdictions, if you mark it 'Top Urgent' it will be attended to straight away. One thing I have learned over the years is that Scotland is not a normal jurisdiction, but we have enough pressure now and so there is every chance it will be treated correctly this time. The reason for the urgency is that the only time they can fix the school is during the summer shut-down and so there's a lot of work to be done in a very short space of time. All that Mr Swinney needs to do is instruct Stephen Garvin to respond to the comments on the attached visual inspection reports and that will answer the main outstanding questions for both the Teaching Unions and for myself. I perhaps didn't make that clear to you yesterday, but that's the only way it works and the situation could not be more urgent.
If you managed to watch 'Why Buildings Collapse' on BBC2 last night (it's on the i-player if you missed it) it confirmed that a judge has already instructed a settlement against a wide range of parties involved in the collapse. Specifically, anyone who was made aware that there were problems but didn't investigate them properly. In our case, that list will be headed-up by the Scottish Government, Harper MacLeod, Scottish Building Standards, Hub, Education Scotland and one of the largest Councils in the country and that is a truly astonishing failure, isn't it. You will have noticed it referred to the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse at the start of the programme. In fact, it is the same engineer who is examining the cause of Champlain Collapse that previously investigated the cause of the Hyatt Collapse 41-years ago. What he said last night of the Hyatt Collapse was that he is still 'shocked' that the design only accommodated 30% of the mandated maximum load and it was 'never going to work' and he didn't believe that could be possible. At Brimmond, the figures are remarkably similar, aren't they: a capacity of less than 75kN/m2 against a mandated maximum load of 150kN/m2. Hence, that's why I keep saying to you that it is never going to work; it's an engineering impossibility on the same scale as the Hyatt. People really need to start listening to me before it is too late.
One thing that was made clear last night that when someone is involved in a fatal accident investigation, then they never forget it and it affects them for the rest of their lives. I have mentioned that several times over the years, haven't I. When Stephen Garvin's responses are received, then you will see how close you have come at Brimmond to a collapse and you could not have been closer, believe me.
I confirm that I referred Bruce Caldow of Harper MacLeod to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC) in August 2016. They should have just passed the complaint on to the Law Society of Scotland but they didn't do that and I am now time-barred. The legal ombudsman in Scotland is a real shambles and I do not want to waste any more time on them. I understand that they were re-formed recently by Lorne Crerar of Harper MacLeod and so that may explain their reluctance to investigate his law-firm. I do hope that I'm wrong about that because Harper MacLeod would appear to be in enough trouble as it is. Professor Cole's opinion of lawyers in construction were that they contribute very little and just encourage everyone not to communicate. You see that here and the consequences of it, in this case anyway, have been absolutely tragic.
I sent the EIS a couple of Emails yesterday suggesting they take this forward from here with Stephen Garvin from the Scottish Government and Euan Pirie from Harper MacLeod; I think I copied them through to you. I would suggest the same urgency is required from the EIS just now, but we can leave that to them.
Please confirm a meeting date? This Friday? As you know, I want to get this finished as quickly as possible and I really don't understand why I am still waiting.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie and Bob,
I think we can leave Mr McAteer to pursue this for the next couple of days with the Scottish Government and Harper MacLeod. There are two things I would like to point out to both of you following last night's documentary. The Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse hasn't been on TV for perhaps 40-years but last night's short explanation might just be timely and bring everyone to their senses:
1. The investigating engineer, Mr Glenn Bell has investigated many building disasters over the course of the past 41-years. The disaster that shook him the most though was the Hyatt Collapse of 1981 and many engineers worldwide would agree with that. There, a design change which everyone was told had been checked and was safe, hadn't been checked and wasn't safe and 114No people were killed and 200No were injured as a result. The engineers responsible for saying it was checked and was safe lied and had their professional engineering licences removed. I think that nowadays in the USA, the sanction would be much stronger than that. Mr Bell describes this disaster in little over a minute from 18.00mins onwards.
In our case, we have been told that it has been checked and that it is safe by John Swinney and Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government, Bruce Caldow of Harper MacLeod and, crucially, by Fairhurst Consulting Engineers of Aberdeen. It does look to me as if all four have been lying to us and that is, as you can imagine, incredibly serious. As I explain below, in both the Hyatt and Brimmond, the under-design is of the order of 70% and when that occurs, failure is often sudden. It was sudden at the Hyatt and I imagine it could be sudden at Brimmond too, where I would not expect structural failure to occur incrementally.
2. I do not expect that there is much that either of you can do at this stage. This example shows that Scotland is many decades behind the rest of the world in terms of whistle-blowing laws and there can be no clearer demonstration of that very sad state of affairs than is set-out by this case. Jackie has worked on it for more than 6-years and Bob for more than 4-years and scarcely anyone has responded to either of you in that time. The agreed position of the Hub Client Consortium is that we all do nothing and wait until the building cracks and that is astonishing. Are the Teaching Unions just accepting this and are there any other countries in the world that would allow that to happen?
If you can assist Mr McAteer in any way, then I would ask you to contact him directly. I see the action just now being with Mr McAteer and with the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney and the rest of us can only await the outcome of that. As you can see below, I have asked Mr McAteer to have me released from this case by the end of this week.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Dunlop,
I've been keeping yourself and the ICE posted over the course of the past year about this case. It is nearly at an end now and so it may be worth reviewing the 2No Emails below and the documentary 'Why Buildings Collapse' which was aired on Tuesday night and is available just now on the BBC i-player.
In the USA, the problem was traced back to a delinquent engineering profession and that was identified and corrected. In Scotland, we have the beginnings of a delinquent engineering profession too, but the bigger problem is a delinquent legal profession and that makes life impossible for whistle-blowers.
Mr Bell expresses all the honesty of a professional (minute 18) and that is something that is increasingly scarce in Scotland, from both the legal profession and, increasingly, from the engineering profession and that situation will greatly concern both of you.
As set-out below, I expect to be able to leave this tomorrow along with Jackie Baillie and Bob Matheson and I have left that with Mr McAteer to negotiate with Mr Swinney. The bigger problem, which will take a lot longer to sort-out from where we are now, regards the honest conduct of lawyers as exemplified by Harper MacLeod and the honest conduct of engineers as exemplified by Fairhurst.
There is no need to reply to me at this stage, but your professions are in a real mess and some leadership is required from both of you in order to get these companies re-aligned to an honest, professional and ethical set of core-values. As I allude to below, in many countries in the world, both of these companies would be facing the prospect of serious sanction just now and so it is worth you both spending some time on this in order to fully understand the chronology of events.
The school is closed just now for the summer holiday but it is due to re-open on 22nd August, which is not far away. That puts a deadline on both the engineering and legal professions to get your houses in order and there is no time to spare, is there?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Dunlop,
I still haven't heard anything from Mr McAteer and so Scotland's legal paralysis continues. Can I make a suggestion that will expedite this?
The best known precedent case is the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981 and I have explained it many times over the years. At the Inquiry, all responsibility for the collapse was placed at the door of the engineering firm, GCE Consulting Engineers, who issued bogus engineering checks which reassured the public that the walkways were safe to use. No-one suspected that the checks were bogus and they only discovered that during the Inquiry and, as you can imagine, it caused a great outpouring of public anger and turmoil within the engineering profession at the time. At Brimmond, you are all aware that the checks, by Fairhurst, are bogus and you have elected, for whatever reason, to do nothing and so there is perhaps a risk that some degree of responsibility will attach to each of you for that reason.
Fairhurst have two possible alternatives from here:
1. They either re-issue the checks with the comments answered.
2. Or, they withdraw the checks.
Either is acceptable, but they cannot decline and do nothing and so can the ICE instruct Fairhurst to do either 1, or 2, on Monday please?
You have had the opportunity to watch 'Why Buildings Collapse'. Although Mr Bell was clear that the primary cause of collapse hasn't yet been established, he has recently agreed with a judge that the most likely cause is subsidence due to liquefaction, which is the same problem affecting Brimmond School. Worldwide, this is rarely encountered, but when it is encountered it always results in a collapse; in a structural failure.
I copy this to the present Cabinet Minister and it is for her information and necessary action. I don't know what the ICE's thoughts are on this, but it does seem unlikely to me that this building can be re-set to a settled equilibrium in time for re-opening in late-August. But, their experts will be able to advise you on and answer that question.
Finally, we are all suffering losses as a result of this case, but I have suffered more than anyone. Kindly ensure that this is resolved to an outcome please. Your legal ombudsman in Scotland is totally useless and so there is no point in suggesting them. Specifically, I am requesting a meeting with Mr McAteer where my outcome can be agreed and I can be released from any further involvement in this case. Can I suggest that the meeting takes place early this week? We are at the stage now where confirmation of this meeting date and time is all that I want to hear from you, or from anyone else.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
Thanks for that.
That's all that BuroHappold will provide you with as you are not the client. Their client is the Hub Client Consortium and they will only answer to them. Contractually, that is the situation and BuroHappold will not transgress the Contract, not even for a Parliamentarian.
The information you are asking for is currently with Hub and Aberdeen City Council. That has been the situation since March 2018 and there is nothing BuroHappold can or will add at this stage. Therefore, if you are able to ask Hub or Aberdeen City Council for this information, then they will provide it. Remember, the Contract exists to protect the public interest, not to protect Hub's interest.
This has been left with the Institution of Civil Engineers and I suggest we let them resolve it from here. We do have Fairhurst's visual inspection reports and we only have them thanks to the Press. That in itself is a sad state of affairs, isn't it?
I will be proven either right or wrong and that should be getting done now. The ICE are not constrained by any Contract and their responsibility is to ensure that their members comply with the law, with the ethical code and they take an overview on the work of their members when it impacts safety.
I previously worked with a chap who managed the construction of two reinforced concrete bridges and both bridges collapsed. I have worked on two buildings recently and on both occasions the ground supporting the buildings has failed. That's engineering I'm afraid and that's the way it has always worked. When you suspect there is a problem, stop straight way and get it investigated by experts. The ICE are experts and they have seen situations like this many times. The ASCE are the same and it is in the heritage of both of these organizations to investigate this properly. It strikes me that Fairhurst are in exactly the same position as GCE were in at the Hyatt Regency. Fortunately, Brimmond hasn't collapsed.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Mallett,
I sent the trailing Email to Jackie Baillie an hour ago and I thought it best to copy it to you.
I would stress that I have made no criticism of BuroHappold over the past 8-years. In fact, I have asked the others to take guidance from yourself and as many other geotechnical experts as possible in order to inform a sensible way forward. The problem in Scotland is that no-one listens.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie and Gary,
Let me summarize the position as it stands at the moment:
1. Hugh Mallett's opinion of 2018 can only be handed-over by the client who are the Hub Consortium. You may recall the attached letter which was sent to you by Hub in 2018? This letter explains the hierarchy within the Consortium and Hub themselves are clearly in charge. However, they have presumably been instructed by the present Cabinet Minister, Ms Somerville, to hand this information over?
2. A review of Fairhurst's visual inspection reports can only be carried-out by Fairhurst themselves. If they decline, and I presume they have declined, then they can be reviewed in terms of compliance with the law, impact on public safety and compliance with the ethical code, by the ICE. I have already asked them to do this and I presume that position is supported by all of you?
3. Contractually, Hugh Mallett's expert opinion is the only opinion that matters. You may find that my opinion, Hugh Mallett's opinion and the ASCE opinions are all very similar? That's what I would expect anyway and that will be a problem. It is possible that the ICE will disagree with all of us and it is for that reason that we are all anxiously awaiting their input.
As you are aware, I want to leave this situation for the rest of you to sort-out from here as there is really no need for my continuing involvement. Can I leave that to Mr McAteer? If he requires assistance from yourself, can you provide it please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Agreed - and actions 1,2 and 3 are for the Cabinet Minister - and communication is for everyone. We're running-out of time, aren't we.
On Thursday, 14 July 2022 at 07:48:38 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Many thanks for your email. It is a matter for Mr McAteer to respond to you about any meeting.
Best wishes
Jackie
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Stephen Dick
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 6:53:28 AM
To: Baillie J (Jackie), MSP ; Gary McAteer
Cc: Bob Matheson ; scotland@ice.org.uk ; Somerville S (Shirley-Anne), MSP
Subject: Re: Hub and the Institution of Civil Engineers
CAUTION: This e-mail originated from outside of The Scottish Parliament. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Jackie,
I understand that the school is due to re-open on 23rd August and so that puts a timeline on everyone. Can I suggest the following:
1. Fairhurst's visual inspection reports are analogous to those presented by Consulting Engineer GCE, prior to the Hyatt Collapse in 1981 and so can I suggest that they are formally withdrawn? The ICE can disagree with me if they wish but, in my opinion, these, and all other visual inspection reports that Hub are relying upon, should be withdrawn immediately.
2. If Hugh Mallett's opinion has not been sent to you via Hub and the Cabinet Minister, then it is being deliberately withheld. I have read his previous report, from June 2014, and it was the most disparaging engineering report I have ever read and it lead to a disagreement with the Contractor and to my dismissal. If his subsequent report of March 2018 is being withheld by the Scottish Government, then there is an obvious reason for that.
3. That leaves us with the opinions of ASCE expert members from 2017. This information is genuine and has been accepted, without comment, by all of the parties that are involved. The engineers are identified and they are some of the best engineers in the world. In view of the situation we are all in at the moment, we are fortunate to have this information and we should be using it.
I still haven't heard from Mr McAteer and that is most disappointing. As I have said many times now, my situation has been caused by Jonathan Moore who is an employee of the Scottish Government. So, we are waiting only on a solution being offered by the Scottish Government; we are not waiting on anyone else. Can this meeting be arranged for tomorrow please, as I have waited for long-enough.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
OK Jackie, thanks for that.
The action is with Mr McAteer and Mr Swinney. Mr Swinney won't initiate anything and so Mr McAteer will have to do it. That's my understanding anyway and so I'll wait.
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 08:24:01 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Dear Stephen
Many thanks for your email. I will check if I have any outstanding responses due from the Scottish Government.
I have not heard from Mr McAteer at all and have no knowledge of any meeting.
Best wishes
Jackie
Dear Jackie,
One final point - when the dust settles, millions of pounds of public money will have been wasted and peoples lives put at risk, all for political expedience.
Hugh Mallet now has Hub's visual inspection reports and the opinions of ASCE members. Can I suggest that he is asked for his comments on both? He is the engineer with design liability for the project and so he must answer. I suspect he will say "I told you this was bound to happen - why didn't you just listen".
Contractually, he must respond to Hub and that is the key to unlocking this cover-up. There's no use you, or anyone else asking as he will not respond.
I still haven't heard anything from Mr McAteer and so today's meeting is obviously not going ahead. The last time I met him I said this has to be concluded by the end of May, or we will run-out of time. That explains the extra effort that I have put-in since May but, in Scotland, nothing works.
Let me be very clear - I am wanting to be removed from this within days now, as I am sick and tired of it. Fixing the school, if that is possible, is the responsibility of those who made the blunder in the first place and those who covered it up.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Mallett,
For clarity, I thought it best to present you with a full description of the problems at Brimmond School. I am not stating anything that I have not stated before, but I am a member of the public and there comes a time when I should step back and leave this to those who have a contractual duty to answer it.
As I understand it, you are required to reply to Hub and Hub are required to pass your opinions directly on to all interested parties that ask for them and so I am suggesting that anyone who wants your expert opinion should contact Hub, rather than BuroHappold. Hence, the following is for your information, for the information of the others and to allow proper communication to take place:
1. The school is due to re-open on 23rd August and, for rectification to be complete and a new groundwater equilibrium established in time, remedial works should have been designed by the end of May. That is why Ms Baillie wrote to you in April.
2. Your reply, which I received last week, suggests that nothing has been done, or authorized, by BuroHappold.
3. Previous attempts have been made at stopping the water inundation and none of them have been successful. It is considered as a Principal ‘P’ design consideration under EC7 and so it should be reviewed urgently by the team who have design liability for the project, which is BuroHappold, Ogilvie Construction and, by virtue of the checks they carried-out in 2016, the Scottish Government.
4. The 5m depth of the upstream excavation means that the soil within the pressure bulbs is at risk from softening, scour and collapse. When that happens, the structure will fail and it will become a 'dangerous building' and that is extraordinarily difficult to remediate and so all steps should be taken to prevent that from happening.
5. The client has recently installed settlement markers around the perimeter of the building to monitor for movement. I have stated that when a failure occurs, it will occur ‘from the bottom’ and there may be no prior warning of that. Hence, building settlement markers do not help in the long term.
6. The client has accepted that a geotechnical limit-state failure has occurred, but has elected to wait until a structural limit-state failure occurs and that is not permissible under EC7. Frankly, it is unlawful to do that.
7. In 2014, I asked the client to include ‘water inundation, soil collapse and subsidence’ in the school’s Health and Safety File so that the school staff would recognize it. That doesn’t appear to have been done and so the school staff have no idea where water inundation comes from and what it inevitably leads to.
8. I have said that BuroHappold’s design was changed by the introduction of the deep excavation, upstream of the site. This may seem an innocuous design change, but it is not. I have made the analogy between what has happened at Brimmond to what happened at the Hyatt Collapse in 1981. There, an equally innocuous design change reduced the available capacity of a steel connection by 70%. Failure of that connection caused a sudden collapse 2-years later which resulted in the deaths of 114No people. We currently have a similar reduction in soil bearing capacity at Brimmond; the bearing capacity should be, and was, greater than 150kN/m2 and it is now less than 75kN/m2.
9. I have made the analogy with Champlain Towers in Miami, which is thought to have collapsed primarily due to liquefaction caused by tidal flows; Brimmond is failing due to soil collapse caused by artesian flows, which, as we can see, is even more damaging.
10. Much depends upon the actual pressure that exists in the artesian layers. That is impossible to assess of course but the attached photograph gives an indication of the pressure in a 1m deep artesian layer, at Brimmond, in June. A 5m deep artesian layer in January would be working at an even greater pressure and when all of these layers have been blocked down to a depth of 5m, that will lead to really significant problems and I have said that, in this case, it will lead to the inevitable collapse of the building.
11. If you issue an engineering report which gives the impression that a building has been checked and is safe, then it must have been genuinely checked and must be safe. The Hyatt case explains why this is so crucial and it has always been so. Many engineering disasters over the past 50-years were preceded by someone saying: ‘This looks OK...I don't see anything wrong with this’, which is all a visual inspection report actually does.
12. You have had time to review the opinions of ASCE members and the two visual inspection reports by Fairhurst. I suggested to Ms Baillie on Friday that all of the visual inspection reports be withdrawn; that will greatly simplify things and I presume that you wouldn’t disagree with that?
13. The opinions of members of the ASCE that I sent to you last week is currently the only information we have from geotechnical experts. Most concluded that the school could probably be fixed if the upwelling groundwater was quickly brought under control, but they didn’t all say that and some were less optimistic. These opinions were issued in 2017 and, tragically, nothing has been done by Hub to address these concerns since then.
14. What concerns me is that Fairhurst’s structural engineers and the Contractor are being asked to pass this school as safe every year. According to EC7, such a safety check, when it concerns ground conditions, should be carried-out only by a geotechnical expert. Would a geotechnical engineer pass this school as safe? I very much doubt it.
15. This is the result of a construction mistake by the Contractor. I have never alleged that it is anything other than that and so consider that I have no agenda against the Contractor, or anyone else. We can therefore look at this on a factual engineering basis and that is what I have always tried to do.
16. For anyone who is feeling less enthusiastic than they should be about fixing this, additional motivation is provided if you consider what you would do if your family members attended this school every day.
I presume that the above is clear and if you agree with it then a very serious problem exists. Credit is due to Ms Baillie for showing the resourcefulness to break the log-jam and I will leave it to the rest of you to direct any remaining questions you have to Hub.
The obvious way to solve this is for Hub to issue BuroHappold’s expert opinion of 2018 and I copy-in Fraser Innes so that he can do that on Monday.
It is likely that no properly authorized work will be done before the school re-opens next month but we should take this opportunity to understand the problem; is it as serious as I have explained, or have I exaggerated? The only person who can answer that question is the geotechnical expert with design liability for the project - and that is yourself.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
Hugh Mallett was on holiday yesterday but he's back today. He's a combative figure and so if anyone wants to say to him: "But no-one agrees with you", then good luck to them. That has worked for the past 8-years with me, but it won't get you anywhere with him.
I have not heard anything from Natalie yet. It's a closing meeting I'm looking for on Friday and not another phone call and so please confirm, giving me as much notice as possible. As you will appreciate, I've had more than enough of this now.
One final point: Hugh Mallett is the only person authorized under the Contract to give an opinion. I may be wrong of course but my presumption has always been that he is likely to agree with me and that will be a problem for those mentioned below.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary,
I'm still waiting.
I don't intend sending Hugh Mallett any more information. BuroHappold are a big international company and, in terms of engineering, ethical standards, legal advice and all the rest of it they are ahead of anything we have here.
They may be asking Hub: 'This guy was a whistleblower...why did nobody listen'. If they agree with me, and I think they will, then the problems are only going to get worse from here.
Let me spell it out again: My situation has been caused by Jonathan Moore, ergo John Swinney. It is therefore his responsibility and all I want is for it to be resolved at a closing meeting tomorrow.
Please respond as I am sick and tired of this refusal to communicate.
Thank you,
S. Dick
OK - that means that BuroHappold agree with me.
I want to discuss a fully worked-out solution and so can I ask that he has that in place first?
On Thursday, 21 July 2022 at 17:47:01 BST, Natalie McLaughlin wrote:
Email sent for and on behalf of Mr Gary McAteer
Dear Mr Dick,
You have sent a number of emails in relation to this. I do require to speak with you but I have not been available this week.
Yours faithfully,
Gary McAteer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98l3Us8IU-I
02/07/2015 · Paul Spinden, former Missouri Court of Appeals judge, recalls the lessons of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway collapse and the potentially catastrophic ...
EXPLORE FURTHER
Jonathan Moore - Head of Outcome Agreement Unit - LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Stephen Garvin on Twitter: "Last day at @ScotGovBldgStds @scotgov for ... twitter.com
Euan Couperwhite - Head of Resources - East Ayrshire Council | LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Dean Lockhart - Wikipedia Wikipedia
Jackie Baillie (@jackiebmsp) / Twitter twitter.com
Gary,
'Jonathan Moore, Stephen Garvin and Euan Couperwhite' - can anyone explain why they are still in a job? I have only spoken to Hugh Mallett a few times and it was in 2014, but BuroHappold's Directors are in place because they deliver for their shareholders. I therefore expect him to agree with me to the extent that he will now go belt and braces. I didn't do that and neither did the ASCE, but that's what you are now likely to get and so prepare for it. If they had listened to me, this would have been fixed at the time and insurance would have paid.
So, I am looking for payment for myself and those who have assisted me and a job in any country in the world - outside of Scotland. Who fixes this school, when and how, is Hub's worry, but I intend having nothing to do with it. I'm sure that Hugh Mallett would prefer working with me than with the clowns at Hub but that is not going to happen and so let me know when you have a solution that works please.
John Swinney and Harper MacLeod have kept this in the long grass for years now and time is now up, isn't it.
The way the Arabs look at this is to say: 'Never trust a Contractor as they will always lie to you'. That's about the size of it isn't it? The Arabs know that because we taught them it and isn't it sad that we have forgotten it and they haven't.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Mallett,
As I explained last week, it is now only 4-weeks until the school re-opens and, for that reason, it is crucial that communication is maintained just now.
I attach a series of 4No letters from Scotland's Deputy First Minister and two senior civil servants. These letters give the impression that the design change has been checked and approved by BuroHappold. If this is not the case, and I presume that it is not, then I am asking you to ensure that the correct situation is recorded with your client, Hub and that should be done as quickly as possible.
The main purpose of my Email last week was to ask that BuroHappold's expert design review of 2018 was distributed to all interested parties by Hub. It will then be for the Council and the Teaching Unions to propose and agree what to do next in terms of maintaining the safe functionality of the school for the year ahead; this will take time and it will not happen over-night. Presumably it has already been issued?
I am expecting my personal involvement in this case to be concluded within the next few days. For any individual to make a what is called a 'Protected Disclosure', as I did in 2014, involves taking an initial risk in the expectation that protections will be provided by, in this case, the Scottish Government and the legal profession. What I can say from my personal experience is that, in Scotland anyway, these initiatives have been made not to work and you can perhaps tell from the attached letters that no protections exist here and, sadly, I fear that we are all about to see the inevitable consequence of that.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Mallett,
I attach the final information received, on 4th April this year, from Aberdeen City Council. They are the building owners and so it is they who are responsible for the day to day safety of the school. What they are dealing with is a 'latent defect' left over by the Hub Consortium who built the school and it appears to me that Mr Wilson is unaware of that. I believe the defect to be urgent and extremely serious but I will leave that to the rest of you to discuss and agree between yourselves now.
Contractually, BuroHappold are the Contractor's Design Consultant and so you should be in agreement with this letter, but I presume that you aren't in agreement with it? I won't go over it point by point as I have covered all of it in my Email to you of 17th July, but I was alarmed when I read this letter and I have no doubt that you will be alarmed by it too.
You may be aware of this already, but the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) operate a 24-hour hotline where licenced engineers working worldwide can report safety or ethical concerns they may have. These concerns are investigated straight away by independent experts and the ASCE see that as part of their regulatory duty to maintain public trust in the profession. Again, it is not for me to suggest anything but I think it is clear that something needs to change in Scotland before the lack of system and lack of communication we have here starts leading to fatal accidents.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
Hugh Mallett has been Technical Director of BuroHappold for many years. Not many last as long as he has and, for that reason, he is one of the most respected figures in engineering in the UK. If I have exaggerated, then he will have identified that and if I am wrong he will have identified that too and he will have done it instantly. Effective communication is not a problem that affects him or slows him down, believe me.
Hence, we are finished and this is over for me. I have been asking for a closing meeting for the past several weeks. Can it be on Friday please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Wilson,
I sent the trailing Email to Hugh Mallett who is Technical Director of BuroHappold in London and I thought it best if I copy it to you at this point. They are the Engineering Consultant with design liability for Brimmond School and so I have asked him to make the final judgement on whether I have exaggerated this, or not.
Jackie Baillie MSP had the gumption to contact him back in April. The series of visual inspection reports (by Fairhurst and Cundall) that you sent me at the end of last year were bogus and she was presumably circumspect about the safety of those who use this building every day and so she elected to initiate an investigation in plenty of time before the school re-opens next month.
As I make clear, I have the utmost respect for BuroHappold. This would appear to be the result of an unfortunate construction mistake, made by the contractor, which has been never been properly investigated. I say that because Hugh Mallett should really have been asked for his opinion, by Hub, in 2014 rather than by myself in 2022 and that would have saved an awful lot of anxiety for everyone, not least for myself.
The Health and Safety Executive explained some time ago that Aberdeen City Council has statutory responsibility for ensuring the safety of the school for the coming year. If you require assistance from BuroHappold in order to achieve that, and I think you do, then please ask for it. They are your Consultants, they are experts and they will respond. Sadly, there is no-one else than can help you and that is the contractual situation.
Thank you,
S. Dick
We're nearly at the end now George. I intend that you and another two others should have your efforts recognized and you should be rewarded. That will not be easy but a way will have to be found. All focus is on John Swinney and HM, which will suit you fine. I will keep you informed.
Dear Jackie and Bob,
Let's all hope we near the finishing line now. I don't know if you managed to watch this ASCE video but, if you haven't, it is worth watching. If anyone has forgotten about Piper Alpha, and I think that just about everyone has, then this will remind them.
I remember Kevin Stewart was in charge of the Cole Inquiry and was in charge of Scottish Building Standards at the time I met Stephen Garvin. So, he's stubbornly done all he can to ensure no communication takes place and this will never be solved.
Helen Shanks was in charge of Education at ACC at the time the school was built. Their head Clark of Works was John Stevenson and he supported me, but Helen Shanks disagreed for whatever reason and hence we have the present mess. Kevin Stewart and Helen Shanks have both been given alternative jobs now and so they're OK.
I remember when I was working in Riyadh a chap told me that Donald Trump phoned BuroHappold asking them to design a Trump Hotel somewhere. They would get the work if they offered a 20% discount. BuroHappold replied: ''You have our price....take it or leave it'. Hence, if John Swinney or any of his gang are thinking about putting pressure on BuroHappold, I don't think it will work. If Donald Trump can't bully BuroHappold, then John Swinney won't be able to do it either.
What I am saying essentially is that once a company like BuroHappold get involved, they will protect their reputation at all costs and so it is world engineering standards and world ethical standards that will be applied to Brimmond. Will it measure-up?
I still haven't heard anything from Gary McAteer, which is very disappointing.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=0DYHmpI20lI
02/07/2015 · Deborah Grubbe, P.E., C.Eng, former safety director for companies including BP and DuPont, explains the challenges of building a safety culture and …
EXPLORE FURTHER
Helen Shanks - University of Stirling - United Kingdom | LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Stephen Garvin - Head of Building Standards - The Scottish Governm… uk.linkedin.com
Wings Over Scotland| The world's most-read Scottish politics website wingsoverscotland.com
Kevin Stewart SNP (@KevinStewartSNP) / Twitter twitter.com
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter twitter.com
FAO Mike Felton
Dear Mr Felton,
I last contacted you approximately 1-year ago regarding the safety of Brimmond School in Aberdeen. The school is now closed for the summer recess and will re-open a few weeks from now and so let me update you on the current situation:
The trailing Emails have been sent over the course of the past 2 weeks to Hugh Mallett Technical Director of BuroHappold and to John Wilson Chief Officer of Aberdeen City Council and they are self-explanatory. The only point that I will reiterate is that Hugh Mallett alone carries contractual authorization to check the design and offer an expert opinion on Brimmond School. Hence, if he says that it is compliant and therefore 'safe' then the school can re-open without any problem. If he doesn't say that, then there is a problem.
Hugh Mallett will respond only to Fraser Innes of Hub and Mr Innes will pass that information on to all interested parties. My experience of working with Mr Mallett in the past has been that if you ask him for advice, he will provide it straight away; he will not keep you waiting. I therefore presume that he has delivered his opinion already and if Mr Innes hasn't passed it on to you yet, then it would be worth asking him for it. I say that because I have had enormous difficulty getting any information from Mr Innes in the past.
This has taken me 8-years of constant effort to get this far and, as you will appreciate, that should not have been necessary. In any sort of professionally run engineering process, whether it be private sector or public sector, this just doesn't happen. As I say below, it has been illegal to work this way since the days of the Hyatt Regency in 1981. As I see it, the Hub Consortium are on the margins of criminal law as it stands and if the school is opened without Hugh Mallett's authorization and an accident occurs, then that situation is likely to change entirely.
The school has been passed as safe until now on the basis of the visual inspection reports attached. I do not know what BuroHappold's opinion of these is, or Currie and Brown's opinion but, in my view, these are so shocking they would not be acceptable in any other country in the world and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Swinney and Ms Somerville,
I have been corresponding with both of you for some time regarding the safety of Brimmond School in Aberdeen. The school is due to re-open on 24th August and so I sent the undernoted information to Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold a fortnight ago and I asked him to respond.
BuroHappold will respond in full and they will do it very quickly. They will only issue their opinion to their client, who is Fraser Innes of Hub North Scotland. BuroHappold will not get into communication with anyone else because, contractually, they are not permitted to do that. They did respond, reluctantly I think, to Jackie Baillie presumably because she is a parliamentarian but, frankly, I was surprised they did that and I would not expect them to do it again.
As you can both imagine, this is 'public interest' information which should be distributed to the following list of interested parties, by Mr Innes, without delay:
Aberdeen City Council
Scottish Futures Trust
Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS)
Harper MacLeod
Ogilvie Construction
Protect
Scottish Building Standards
The Institution of Civil Engineers
Education Scotland
Faithfull and Gould
It will be for Aberdeen City Council and the EIS to engage with those who use the school every day and with the Health and Safety Executive.
Everyone can engage with each other and with Hub North Scotland and questions can be asked around the one expert opinion that, contractually, everyone must accept and as we approach the start of August, I do not have to explain to you how desperately urgent this has now become.
Essentially, responsibility for resolving this to an outcome lies with yourselves as Ministers and that is my understanding of the Education Scotland Act.
The present situation is that everyone is waiting on Mr Innes.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Swinney and Ms Somerville,
I expect this case to be concluded within the next couple of days. The lesson that I would learn from it is that whenever an engineer steps forward to say that something isn't right, stop and get it checked by experts - don't sack the engineer and keep going.
I have been trying to end my involvement, but that has not been possible until I had proven myself correct and I have now done that. Fraser Innes will soon distribute BuroHappold's responses to points 1-16 and that will be the end of the road for everyone. I think we all know what the answers are going to be already.
I have suffered from 8-years of itinerant working and unemployment as a result of this case and that has been caused by Bruce Caldow who is an employee of Harper MacLeod and Jonathan Moore who is an employee of the Scottish Government. As far as I am concerned, no-one else is involved.
I have withstood this level of attrition up until now but I have asked Mr McAteer of Beltrami to propose a solution that will bring it to an end by Friday 5th August. I presume that everyone is in agreement, as this cannot go-on indefinitely.
He will require assistance from both the Scottish Government and Harper MacLeod. That assistance has not been forthcoming in the past and so I am asking you both to ensure that it is put in place immediately, please.
Dear Mr McAteer,
Confirm a meeting time on Friday please and ensure that your colleagues at the Scottish Government and Harper MacLeod are aware of the assistance you require. You are in charge of this and so you will need to communicate with all of the other parties that are involved and explain what you need them to do.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
I received this a couple of hours ago. What I said earlier was: "He (Gary McAteer) will require assistance from both the Scottish Government and Harper MacLeod. That assistance has not been forthcoming in the past and so I am asking both of you to ensure that it is put in place, immediately". Please deal with them yourself now; tell them what you want and leave them to get it done - this is their problem to sort-out.
I asked for a meeting on Friday where everything is resolved to an agreed outcome. If you need any assistance from Jackie or Bob, then ask them now please; I understand that both have offered to help. Bob may say: "This should have been sorted-out within 8-weeks in 2014". If it has taken your colleagues 8-years already, and they still cannot communicate with each other, then they have failed, haven't they.
Ask Natalie to advise me a time on Friday, please; that's all I need in the meantime.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Mallett,
I expect to end my involvement in this case within the next few days and so I thought it prudent to copy to you, and the ICE, the undernoted Email.
I have never criticized BuroHappold at any time during the past 8-years and Jackie and Bob can attest to that. What happened was a construction mistake, made by the Contractor, which was reported at the time but which was never properly investigated. So, if you have been given the impression over the years that I am somehow the enemy of BuroHappold, then that is not the case.
The problem we have in Scotland is that no-one understands the concept of "whistle-blowing". It is something that no-one wants to do of course but it is the ethical and legal duty of any engineer to do it when there is no alternative and, as I explain below, if you are sacked, there is no alternative.
In my opinion, it has been a failure of the client to do their job.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary,
I haven't heard anything from Natalie re tomorrow's meeting.
I am aware that there must be 30 people involved in this causing this foul-up and covering it up. None of them have missed a day's pay over the past 8-years; I have missed several years pay, haven't I.
Ask Natalie to contact me please.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Mr McAteer,
I am addressing this to you because somebody, free from vested interests, has to co-ordinate this to an outcome very quickly as the school is due to re-open in another couple of weeks. You have been dealing with this case for in excess of the past 6-years and so I presume that duty falls to you. Let me set-out the way it stands at the moment:
1. There is a Contract in place which sets-out the communication plan and we should all be working to it!
2. The trailing Email should have been sent to BuroHappold on 17th July, by Hub. BuroHappold will have responded point for point and that response should have been passed-on, by Hub, to all interested parties. If that hasn't been done, then we know there is a problem.
3. The safety of the school is a matter for Aberdeen City Council and the EIS. If either, or both, want independent expert advice, that can be obtained from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE will only respond to a report by either of these two parties and the HSE will need adequate time to carry-out any investigation.
4. I stated yesterday to BuroHappold that no criticism of their company has been made, or is being made, by myself. This is the result of an every-day construction error made by the Contractor. Instead of investigating and correcting the error, which would in all likelihood have been paid for by insurance, it has been covered-up by the client.
5. I stated yesterday to the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) that the problem has been exacerbated because no-one in Scotland appears to understand what a 'whistle-blower' is. Attached is the advice from the Institution of Structural Engineers which was issued a decade ago and it couldn't be clearer. Why do I have to keep repeating this to all of you? Is the ICE's advice different, or is it the same? and is your advice as a Scottish lawyer different, or is it the same?
6. I asked the ICE some weeks ago to examine the 'visual inspection reports' which were issued by Hub, via Aberdeen City Council, in December 2021. As you know, I consider these reports, specifically those by Fairhurst, to be bogus and to have greatly exacerbated the problem for everyone. The ICE has not responded, which is very disappointing.
As you are aware, it is my intention to leave this investigation for all the rest of you to conclude from here. Essentially, you are all being paid to do it and I am not being paid. That situation can be excused if it goes-on for a few weeks or months but when it goes-on for 8-years, then it cannot be excused.
Please get back to me today and advise when my closing meeting is going to take place. As you are aware, I am expecting it to be scheduled for tomorrow.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl,
There is a danger in waiting things out when it comes to Scottish lawyers. The danger is they continue to do nothing and the rest of us do nothing either because we are all waiting on lawyers. Professor Cole explained this problem in the Cole Inquiry. It is something that typically happens in Scotland and so we should understand the way it works and we should not let it happen here.
Harper Macleod have had 8-years now and Beltrami has had 6-years and if neither has done anything to solve it in that time then it is hardly likely they are going to solve it either individually or collectively, with a fortnight to go.
I have mentioned this before, but BuroHappold carried-out a design review of Brimmond School in March 2018. It was thorough and it was carried-out by their team of experts who had access to all of the design information. There is a big difference between a 'design review' and a 'visual inspection report' and BuroHappold produced a design review which is all that you need.
BuroHappold's design review may not agree with my concerns, and the concerns of the many experts from the ASCE who have the same serious doubts about the safety of this building, but I expect that it will. In fact, I expect it to be even more critical of it than I and the others have been.
Additionally, I asked BuroHappold a series of 16 questions on 17th July. They will have answered them and returned the answers to Hub. You are entitled, under the Health and Safety at Work Act, to demand to see their responses.
The Health and Safety at Work Act can be used to solve just about every workplace safety issue and the key to making it work is the input of the Employees, who are the teachers at the school. Whether the school is safe or not affects them; it doesn't actually affect any of the rest of us. If you, on behalf of the Employees, ask the Employer, Hub/Aberdeen City Council, for this information then they must provide it under the terms of the Act. Whereas whistle-blowing legislation is accepted all over the UK, except apparently in Scotland; the Health and Safety at Work Act is different and it is respected everywhere.
I do not know what BuroHappold make of all this; they are a modern, worldwide engineering consultant of the highest reputation and yet, here they are, witnessing a member of the public in Scotland setting-out, in baby-steps, what everyone must do in order to establish the safety or otherwise of a school. It has been a real failure, hasn't it.
The most effective option of all of course is going back to the Press. The situation has changed since it appeared in November last year and it now looks almost certain that I have been right all along. The only information which has been provided since then has been the additional visual inspection reports by Fairhurst and Cundall, attached, which I think we can all agree are bogus. Otherwise....silence, all round.
Therefore, can I suggest that the EIS request to see the BuroHappold design review and if it is not provided, then I return to the Press; how does that sound? My point would be that the system of checks and balances we have in this country is being deliberately short-circuited; by whom? It would need to be a front page story this time as my experience has shown that these inside stories are only partially effective and are too easily dismissed.
Dear ICE,
I have asked that you either re-issue the visual inspection reports by Cundall and Fairhurst with the comments answered, or withdraw them. Both companies have been paid to produce these reports and with that comes the responsibility that they are in compliance with the ICE's ethical code and so this is a question that can only be answered by the ICE themselves. If they are as incorrect as I say they are, it may be safer to withdraw them, but that is for you to decide.
Dear Mr Wilson and Mr Innes,
The information that should be handed-over to the EIS is that produced by BuroHappold, on or around March 2018, and held by Hub's Angeline Robertson and Aberdeen City Council's Charlie Penman. As I understand it, you have a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act to pass this information on to the teachers at the school and to do that straight away.
Dear Mr McAteer,
Can I remind you that we were supposed to have this resolved to an outcome by now? I think you should be impressing on all of the above that it is fortunate that I have persisted for this long.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl,
Things appear to be moving more quickly now.
Let me re-state the position that the EIS should only accept the recommendations of BuroHappold. I understand that the Council and Hub have been approaching the risk of collapse as something that can be managed by observing differential settlement in the building and the land surrounding the building. There are many things wrong with this approach; probably too many for me to list. Essentially though, it is unlawful and that is probably all that you need to know.
BuroHappold will not approach this on any kind of a "Risk Assessment" basis, simply because it is impossible to mitigate the risk. Hub should fix the building so that it complies with Design Standard EC7 and I believe that is what BuroHappold will say to you. But, make sure that you are provided with their advice as they are the only engineers that can authorize anything. Don't accept anything from Hub or their engineers as it is almost guaranteed to be bogus.
Hugh Mallett is one of the UK's foremost engineers and BuroHappold will protect their reputation at all costs and so accept advice only from him, via Hub, please.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl,
Can I suggest that we give it until mid-week and if the EIS are still getting no response from Hub, then we go to the Press with this? Otherwise, the stasis may continue for another year and, I'm sure that everyone will agree, that would not be a good idea.
My experience of BuroHappold has been that they will comply with the Contract. They will therefore have passed their opinions to Hub and if Hub haven't passed them to the EIS, then there is an obvious reason for that.
When this subject is examined in construction law courts worldwide, someone usually says: 'Only God understands groundwater'. That said, BuroHappold have a much better understanding of it than most and they will explain to you whether my contention that a collapse is inevitable is correct, or not. They may say that I have been exaggerating but, either way, they will answer the question and that will be the end of it.
Jackie Baillie has done more than anyone to get us to this point, but at the stage we are at now, is this a matter for a constituency MSP? It seems a lot for one MSP, who has no connection with the area, with the school, or with those who use the school every day. Holyrood was established to solve Scottish problems in Scotland and so has this become a matter which should be addressed by senior MSP's across all of the political parties at Holyrood?
I am willing to participate in a Press story and Jackie Baillie most helpfully participated in the last one. This time though it would be more effective if the EIS were to take the lead, rather than myself or Jackie. Also, it took me a long time for me to get even one story in the Press. I have now had two stories in the Press and so I think the third can only be organized by the EIS as time is quite obviously no longer on our side.
The Health and Safety at Work Act is the only piece of legislation you need. It was used a couple of years ago by the Union UNISON, who refused to allow their members to begin working at Edinburgh Sick Kids Hospital until it was fixed and the situation at Brimmond is the exactly same.
The 20th December 2017 letter by Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, is attached. Mr Swinney states that BuroHappold disagree with me (that the change in design has made the school unsafe) and that the investigation is now closed. If this is untrue and BuroHappold did not say that, then that appears to put Mr Swinney in a position analogous to the position that Jack Gillum was in after the Hyatt Collapse of 1981. Once you can be mentioned in the same sentence as Jack Gillum and the Hyatt Regency, then you know you are in for big problems. That is one of the reasons that I think this is best aired by the Press at this stage, as keeping it restricted does not represent democracy and it is not in anyone's interest.
The ineffectiveness of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Law Society of Scotland to regulate the conduct of their members has been very disappointing. The Institution of Civil Engineers do nothing while their members continue to issue bogus visual inspection reports and the Law Society of Scotland do nothing because "they are too busy". If you compare this to the standard of professional institutions worldwide, it is not even close to the diligent regulatory service they provide. The problem with this is one of public perception; because we all see the professional institutions as the 'safe pair of hands' that can be relied upon, if this is no longer the case in Scotland, for whatever reason, then that will come as a shock to most people, especially when the inevitable end product is demonstrated so vividly by this case.
The last time this story appeared in the Press was in November last year. The journalist was intending to explain that it had already been examined in 2017 by over 40No world experts and their opinions, many of which were deeply concerning, had been accepted by the Scottish Government but were being ignored. Instead, the reports by these experts were being supplanted by visual inspection reports by their local engineers. The journalist read that out to me by telephone just prior to going to press but, at the last minute, the Sunday Mail elected to omit reference to these opinions and, because they did that, the story was made less powerful. It was a good story, but it could have been much better. On this occasion, I think we should go for a front page story that refers to this information. Because it was provided free of charge by members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), there is no professional obligation on any of the members to be correct. However, the fact that there are over 40No of them, all saying the same thing, makes it highly likely that they are correct. As I say, this is information that I provided to everyone and you can either take it, or leave it - but when measured against the information produced by the ICE and by Scottish engineers, I would accept this information and I think we all would?
But, there are a number of different approaches. Another would be to look at why whistle-blowing fails in Scotland. It works in almost every other country in the world, but not here. Why is that? In my experience, it is most unusual for a whistle-blower to be wrong and I speak only for the engineering industry. There have been several occasions in the past when I have dealt with whistle-blowing cases and I have done so quickly and I have found almost all of them to have been completely correct. Scotland has taken a different approach, but what is the public's opinion? We are at the stage, at last, where I will be judged either right or wrong, but should that have taken 8-years?
I am now omitting John Wilson from Aberdeen City Council from the circulation as it appears to me that the Council aren't really the client in this case. The leader of the Hub Client Consortium are Hub themselves and so we can allow Hub to organize their consortium members, which include the Council, the Contractor, BuroHappold, Faithfull and Gould and Harper MacLeod, as they wish. Likewise, dialogue with Scottish Building Standards, Education Scotland and all the rest of the relevant public bodies can be carried-out by Hub.
As far as MSP's are concerned, I have only copied this to Jackie Baillie. At the stage we are at now though, there may be a number of other MSP's with more direct parliamentary responsibility that should get involved. Can I therefore leave it to Jackie to pass this-on, as she so wishes?
Finally, until BuroHappold's information is issued, the only information we have from geotechnical experts is from members of the ASCE attached. The instincts of the journalist at the Sunday Mail were good and he was convinced by it, but I presume that his Editor wasn't convinced and so the article didn't refer to it in the end. We are now more than 8-months further down the road and I think we can all be far more accepting that this information is genuine. The final opinion, of course, can only be BuroHappold's as they are the experts as far as Brimmond School is concerned.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl and Brian,
Can I suggest that the EIS put a deadline on a response from Hub, of close of business today? I think we all know what BuroHappold have said, but if their advice is being withheld in any way, then the Press may be the quickest way to unblock that.
Let me go over the lines of communication again: BuroHappold will only communicate with Hub and Hub must communicate with the EIS. No-one, other than Hub, should contact BuroHappold directly - they responded (reluctantly) to Jackie, but only because she's a parliamentarian.
So far, the only loser has been myself and that's why this has been allowed to persist for so long. If nothing is done and an accident takes place, then we have another Grenfell scenario where everyone is interviewed under Police caution: "When were you aware of this and what did you do to investigate?". I have explained this many times, but Hub can explain it to you now.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary,
I understand that Hub and Harper MacLeod are under great pressure at the moment. God knows what Hugh Mallett and BuroHappold think of these idiots. It is therefore time for our meeting to take place; this Friday, please. I copy-in Jackie for her information.
Did you know that firms like BuroHappold rank world governments in terms of their integrity? The UK used to be number-one. I don't know if that is still the case, but they were number-one for decades. I think we can say that Scotland will be down near the bottom, alongside Chad and Niger.
Ask Natalie to give me a time on Friday, please.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie, Cheryl and Brian,
I sent the undernoted to the Press earlier. I don't know what the situation is regarding Press, but I think that Sunday's the day it should happen (if it's going to happen). After that, it's too late.
You have to make the point as easy to understand as possible. What I am saying here is that this is all the SG's fault. Once you say you have checked something and it's OK and it hasn't been checked and it's not OK, everything becomes your fault.
Dear Gary,
Let me know please when our meeting is going to take place? I still haven't heard a word from Natalie.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl and Brian,
I don't know if BuroHappold's opinion it has been delivered to you but, if it hasn't been delivered, then we have sadly run out of time.
Let me explain who is responsible for this. I am not a lawyer but I am using the precedent cases 'ASCE Ethics Case Studies 2 and 4' for guidance. These have been the reputable source of guidance used worldwide in engineering for the past 30-odd years and, once I have done that, it will be relatively easy for everyone to deduce what the problem has been here:
1. BuroHappold had liability for the Brimmond design. There is no problem with that, as they are one of the world's foremost engineering firms.
2. The Contractor changed the design by introducing the 30m long, 5m deep clay-filled trench. From that point onwards, liability passed from BuroHappold to the Contractor. BuroHappold explained the design change wouldn't work and they were ignored; I explained it wouldn't work and I was terminated. The problems are now obvious, they could hardly be more serious and alarm bells should have been ringing on any publicly funded project - why weren't they ringing? (someone is bound to ask)
3. 14-months later, in November 2015, the land surrounding the school started to sink and flood with muddy groundwater. In terms of EC7, a limit state failure was occurring. For whatever reason, the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, issued his letter of 20th December 2017 stating, incorrectly, that the design had been checked by BuroHappold and they had approved it. Hence, design liability now lies with Mr Swinney. In the Hyatt case, liability lay with Jack Gillum because his company's stamp was used to approve a design change carried-out by a Contractor. Mr Swinney's signature and letter-head have been used to approve this design change and so, ergo, he is personally responsible for it.
That's the way it works and that is the reason nothing is being done. In most countries in the world, government ministers use their powers to ensure investigations take place quickly, independently and honestly. In Scotland, the opposite is the case and when it takes 8-years to get to the point we are at now, that proves my point and we are only fortunate that a structural failure has not already occurred because of it.
This should be solved and solved very quickly as the school re-opens in less than a fortnight. There can only be two possible outcomes from here:
1. Mr Swinney instructs the school to be fixed by BuroHappold and the Contractor. Both would have to be paid but that would appear to be the most pragmatic solution.
2. Mr Swinney continues to do nothing, which means that the school will inevitably suffer a sudden limit state failure, from the bottom. I have described this as the Grenfell option, where everyone waits in silence for structural failure to visit those who use this school every day.
The main difference that sets this case apart from the 'ASCE Ethics Case Study' cases is the existence of worldwide expert engineering opinion on Brimmond School, which I provided in 2017. The public expectation would be that information of this undoubted significance would prompt an investigation and response, but that has never happened and I can only say I find that absolutely extraordinary. The public may find it extraordinary too.
As you know, I believe that the quickest and perhaps the only way to resolve this now is by going to the Press. Can I leave that with you as you can organize it better than I can?
I attach Mr Swinney's letter along with the ASCE members' opinions. I presume that is the only information the Press will require?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary,
The schools go back on 23rd of this month and so time is up and there is no more that I can do. The safety of the school is in the hands of the EIS, Hub and BuroHappold now and they can agree an outcome between themselves.
I am looking for an outcome too. My complaint is about Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government and so I am expecting a solution to be proposed by the Scottish Government. Jackie Baillie had the gumption to contact Hugh Mallett back in April which has helped solve the EIS's problem and she has offered to assist you in any communication that needs to take place in order to solve this.
Can you contact her please - she has offered to help. If you want her to do something then ask and if you don't need her help then let her know that and speak to me and let me know what the plan is and how long it will take.
This has turned into a disgraceful shambles on an international scale, but that does not reflect my efforts and I do not intend to continue unemployed while all others who have caused it continue to be fully paid.
I'm copying Jackie in because she cannot do anything until she knows what, if anything, you want her to do. So, can you let us both know please? When I contact Jackie, I get a response back almost straight away and so can you do the same?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Gary
Please advise if I can assist in any way.
Best wishes
Jackie
Gary,
1. In order to calculate my loss of earnings, I attach a contingent offer from Saudi Arabian Parsons.
2. I do not want to return to working in Scotland as I am treated badly here as a result of this case. So, it must be overseas. I am now 2-years in excess of the cut-off age for most companies and so I will need assistance with that. That can be got around relatively easily.
3. I have asked for Bob Matheson's organization to be paid and another two who have provided assistance to be paid also.
Can we start getting this sorted-out tomorrow please and be finished by Friday? I presume that you will require assistance from Jackie?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary,
1. Start communicating and let Jackie Baillie know what you are working on before Friday, please. All three points below to be answered.
2. Hugh Mallett is back at work today. If the Teaching Unions haven't been given all the reassurances they have been asking for by Hub, can I suggest they contact him directly. He will respond and he will do it either personally or via Hub but, one way or the other, it will be answered today.
Can Natalie get back to me with an appointment time?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
OK Jackie - thanks.
I spent a few years in KSA and another few years in Libya and I reckon less spying of Emails went-on there than goes-on in Scotland. I may be exaggerating of course, but I don't think I am. I wonder if anyone else complains of this?
On Wednesday, 17 August 2022 at 06:53:12 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Yes we have had a phone conversation and he was going to contact you.
Best wishes
Jackie
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Stephen Dick
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 4:17:09 AM
To: Baillie J (Jackie), MSP
Subject: Gary McAteer
CAUTION: This e-mail originated from outside of The Scottish Parliament. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Jackie,
Can you tell me if Gary McAteer has contacted you please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary,
I understand that you have spoken to Jackie by phone and so I presume that an outcome is being put together. It is better to be agreed in your office as I do not trust Email when these Scottish Government operatives are in the picture.
Is Friday OK? Ask Natalie to confirm please. All I want to agree upon are the 3 points undernoted.
Natalie can contact me by phone if she wants.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl and Brian,
I am trying to get my situation resolved by the end of this week, but it is linked in an obvious way to whether I am proven correct, or not. So far, it looks very much as though I am correct.
I presume that the school is now open? I therefore want to make one thing absolutely clear to you and it is that the only person who is authorized to adjudicate on the safety of the design change that I have described trailing, is Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold.
If Hub and Aberdeen City Council are still refusing to provide this, then you can request it directly from BuroHappold. They may tell you that this is a minor change and that the stability of the building and the safety of the occupants is not affected, but I would not expect them to say that and many expert engineers from around the world would react with surprise if they said that.
That will get us all finished, at long last. I presume that Friday is also the drop-dead date for the EIS?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
I'm still waiting on Gary McAteer. No calls, no meeting arranged and so he's not in a hurry.
I'm looking at this as collusion between John Swinney, Scottish lawyers and the Contractor. I never accepted that it was the Council's responsibility, or even Hub's responsibility.
I have paid £50,000 to Scottish lawyers already - to be a whistle-blower and the irony of that won't be lost on you.
I am still being blocked from my Email this morning, although I can get round that in seconds as this Email shows.
So, as I indicated yesterday, I won't be going to the Press again because I think that this time it should be led by the EIS. Also, they should have more of an input into what the Press publish as that is very much key to this. "This school has been rescued from certain collapse by the American Society of Civil Engineers and a whistle-blower". That's the way I would put it, but there are plenty of other ways of looking at it.
If you could send Mr McAteer an Email asking him to hurry-up that would be most helpful. By all means say that I am complaining to you, or forward this Email to him; I am not worried if you do that. Similarly, I have not copied it to the Press or the EIS and I intend letting them sort through this on their own.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
OK Jackie.
He's taking a hell of a long time over it then.
However, you know what you are talking about and so I'll take you're advice.
On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 10:15:03 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Dear Stephen
I had a very helpful phone call with Gary McAteer and think we should give him a little time to respond. He is on your side in this matter.
Best wishes
Jackie
Let me explain one last thing to you:
If you buy a new Toyota car; after 2-years you may receive a letter from Toyota UK asking you to book your car into the nearest Toyota dealership to have the steering checked and a component replaced.
That is because Toyota has become aware of a fault, a 'latent defect' in the steering. It is not your responsibility to identify and fix the problem, it is their responsibility as they designed and built your car. Toyota will design a new component, get it manufactured and send it out to their dealerships across the country so that your car can be fixed, free of charge.
In our case, the school was designed and built by the Hub Consortium (which includes the Council of course) but it is the Consortium who are responsible for doing what Toyota UK would do. It is not the Council alone; the letter we have from Hub prohibits the Council from doing anything and the letter we have from John Swinney prohibits Hub from doing anything.
So, all of the Parliamentary Questions that have been answered, fairly arrogantly in my opinion, over the years by John Swinney are entirely wrong, aren't they. It is the equivalent of Toyota UK writing to their customers saying that any latent defects are their responsibility because they own the car.
As before, I'm not passing this on to anyone else, but this is the way it works. The letter from Hub is attached. So, the title of this Email is correct and there should be absolute separation between John Swinney, lawyers and contractors because when there is not, then this is an example of what can happen.
I'm just sending you this to add to your understanding.
On Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 10:25:05 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
We only spoke this week.
Dear Jackie,
I attach the letter from Shirley-Anne Somerville received on 17th March. I have highlighted the sections which are most relevant although, it has to be said, the whole letter reads like the work of someone who doesn't understand the subject.
If we go back to the analogy of Toyota; the driver is responsible for the safety of the car in as much as the tyres have to be in good condition and the MOT up to date and so on. But, if there is a design error that will lead to the early failure of the car, then that is Toyota's responsibility to identify, to communicate to the owner and to fix.
This is another 'Jack Gillum' letter which has been signed by the Education Secretary and it will make her personally responsible when an accident occurs. She doesn't appreciate that, does she? But, that's the way it has worked for the past 30 or 40 years in engineering and so should someone tell her that before it's too late?
I have tried to explain this many times and the letter explains that, but it is hopeless. I haven't sent Ms Somerville's letter on to BuroHappold, but their reaction to it would be immediate and it would be the same as mine.
I still haven't heard anything from Mr McAteer and access to my Emails is still being blocked. I understand that the school opens again on Monday and pupils go back on 23rd or 24th and so that puts a dead-line on all of them to get this sorted-out. I would suggest that Mr McAteer's dead-line is today?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
I understand that a number of senior figures at Harper MacLeod, including their Chairman, are now working on this case. It would be prudent to review the dependence the Scottish Government and Councils have in this firm and I have been suggesting that for the past few years. I presume that you cannot do anything yourself, but it is a subject that I would be willing to speak to the Press about.
The trailing Email to Harper MacLeod's Bruce Caldow contains my instructions and, if they were followed, then this case would have been properly investigated and solved within 4-8 weeks. Not only that, but insurance would have paid for everything. So, a needless and tragic situation in anyone's language and this is the key Email out of the many hundreds in existence.
Mr McAteer is an Advocate specializing in criminal law and so he will be able to advise you better than anyone, but my understanding is that Mr Swinney and Ms Somerville could be held responsible in the event of any accident. Mr McAteer may say that is unpredictable (I'm sure he will say that) but, based upon precedent, it is certainly possible, if not likely.
Another point worth mentioning again is that it was the Chairman of Harper MacLeod, Lorne Crerar, who recommended the changes to the Scottish legal ombudsman which are in place today and which have only damaged to the role of their profession as an honest public service. Is the new legal ombudsman ever likely to find Lorne Crerar's law firm guilty of a professional misdemeanour? On the basis of what we have seen here, they are reluctant to even investigate his law firm.
When dealing with foundations then you have a limited time to act. Once the foundations are complete it is too late and any interventions are unbelievably complex and that is the situation we are in now. The point of this Email is to say that the only person who could have stopped this in time, but elected not to do so, was Bruce Caldow of Harper MacLeod. I have repeated this to Mr McAteer many times over the years but he is precious about it and reluctant to accept that any lawyer can be to blame.
We have run out of time and the problem has been that we have all been accepting and following the timeline of Harper MacLeod, which means that we wait and nothing ever gets done. An engineering timeline puts a 24-hour deadline on everything; that's what was always required here and Professor Cole recommended that in 2017.
Finally, my Emails are still being blocked and I have heard nothing from Mr McAteer regarding an outcome. Can you ask him to hurry-up, please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
To: Bruce Caldow, Director, Harper MacLeod
Date: 13th September 2014
Bruce,
Ogilvie's final letter to me was dated 10th September. These photographs were taken on 11th September and show that the process of subsidence has already started. The cracks in the soil in then foreground of each photograph mark the edge of the 5m deep trench which was excavated in the search for contamination. No contamination was found, but the soils within these trenches will now be subject to 'inundation, soil collapse and subsidence'. What you are seeing now will worsen during the winter months when the water table level rises and the moisture content of the surface soils increase. The consistence of the soils within the trenches will soften to the extent that, in places, the soils will have the consistency of a slurry. It is therefore dangerous and it should be recognised, discussed and recorded now. These photographs will allow this process to get started.
As the letters show, I have discussed this over numerous iterations with Ogilvie's senior management. There is no recognition from them, either in writing or verbally, that there is a problem and so they have no intention of putting any remedial actions into place. Ogilvie's Construction Director appears to have an entrenched view that subsidence will not occur. Experience shows that in situations like this either nothing is done by the contractor, or some reluctant and half-hearted remedial work is done at the last minute which will not solve the problem.
Aberdeen City Council's geotechnical advisers are Fairhurst and Partners. They will understand what has happened and they will be able provide independent advice to Aberdeen City Council.
From my personal point of view, I wanted to resolve this as an employee of Ogilvie and I wanted to finish the project and ensure that it was successful. 'Whistleblowing' is not therefore something that I chose to do, but something that I have been forced into doing. How else can I deal with an employer like Ogilvie? Surely employees should be able to raise concerns about engineering, especially on government funded projects, without fear of being of being terminated on the fabricated grounds of 'poor communication skills'.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl and Brian,
Jackie's putting in a great effort just now and so I intend leaving her to it.
I sent her the trailing Email recently and thought that I should also send it to you. It seems unfair to blame this disaster on a single person when so many have been involved and have elected to do nothing, but it all starts somewhere.
You have seen this Email before, but when you check the design of foundations you need to do that before you build them. Rectifying foundations at any time after that is impossibly complex and I suspect everyone understands that very well now. It is an emergency - do it straight away, or it's too late.
The instruction contained in the Email is very clear, but Harper MacLeod did nothing. I paid them a lot of money, but they didn't pick up the phone to ask anyone, or communicate with anyone.
Since 2014 we have been involved in a doom-loop of asking for proper checks to be carried-out and visual inspection reports being issued instead. That has gone-on interminably hasn't it and it's been a cover-up and a systemic failure of engineering at all levels. The Cole Inquiry made the same observations in 2017 and it hasn't made a blind bit of difference, has it.
It all starts with the concept that a Contractor is a 'Partner' that you can trust and defend. But, when the Contractor starts lying to you, then you need to start lying too if you want to continue to defend them. This is understood throughout the world, but it is not understood here in Scotland and I find that astonishing. You can see the mess that everyone is in just now.
I am not going back to the Press with this as I see it now as the EIS's job to do that.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary,
Sent earlier.
My expectation is that BuroHappold have said that the school cannot be fixed. It can be improved, with great difficulty, but it cannot be fixed.
Also, we're now getting towards the end of summer and the school is open again and so this has been another missed opportunity.
What they do from here is for the EIS. I just want finished; this week please.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Neil Bibby is my list MSP - MSP for West of Scotland and so he can work on my behalf. I've never even heard of him and so have never contacted him. Jackie must have done that. Dean Lockhart is a Tory and a senior lawyer. Sort of the equivalent of Adam Tomkins.
The important thing to notice is Lorne Crerar. Another bent lawyer from HM. Not unexpected to see him there but good news all the same.
One thing these Holyrood Ministers don't get is that once you issue a letter and sign it, that's it....the bullet has left the gun so to speak. If you are wrong, and what is written in the letter is wrong, then you are in trouble.
Watch this video when you have time and you'll see what I mean.
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=98l3Us8IU-I
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
14:32
02/07/2015 · Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4 73,282 views Jul 2, 2015 Paul Spinden, former Missouri Court of Appeals judge, recalls the lessons of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway...
Author: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Views: 73K
EXPLORE FURTHER
Jonathan Moore - Head of Outcome Agreement Unit - LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Professor Lorne Crerar CBE - Chairman - Harper Macleod LLP - LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Dean Lockhart - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org
Jackie Baillie (@jackiebmsp) / Twitter twitter.com
Neil Bibby - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org
Looking good now, George....
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=98l3Us8IU-I
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
14:32
02/07/2015 · Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4 73,282 views Jul 2, 2015 Paul Spinden, former Missouri Court of Appeals judge, recalls the lessons of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway...
Author: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Views: 73K
EXPLORE FURTHER
Jonathan Moore - Head of Outcome Agreement Unit - LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Professor Lorne Crerar CBE - Chairman - Harper Macleod LLP - LinkedIn uk.linkedin.com
Dean Lockhart - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org
Jackie Baillie (@jackiebmsp) / Twitter twitter.com
Neil Bibby - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org
Dear Jackie,
Professor Spinden explains that once an engineer places his seal, (or stamp, or signature) on a design or design change, then he/she is personally approving it and taking full responsibility for it. Everyone accepts that Jack Gillum didn't personally check and approve the Hyatt design change, but his company stamp was used and so he was deemed responsible. Jack Gillum and Dan Duncan were seen as "the leaders" and so the buck stopped with them.
This has been understood in worldwide engineering since, I believe, 1985 and this case was the precedent for it. By the way, I explained this case to Stephen Garvin in 2019, expecting some kind of response from him, but I didn't get one. I explained to him that he was one of "the leaders" and, in fact, this conversation is recorded in the minutes of meeting.
In our case, the letters were signed personally by John Swinney and Shirley-Anne Somerville. Professor Crerar will be able to tell you if that makes them responsible, or not. If he says: "they could be responsible", then I would ask him: "what are we paying your company for?" We're in a sad situation in Scotland when a member of the public has to do this amount of work for all of them, aren't we? - right up to the very last day.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Sir/Madam,
It may help if I explain exactly what information we are all waiting for:
1. The design review for Brimmond School was carried-out during March 2018 by Hugh Mallett, who is Technical Director of the engineering consultancy BuroHappold and it was issued to Hub and to Aberdeen City Council at the same time. Hugh Mallett is a UK expert in this subject and BuroHappold is one of the largest and most respected engineering consultancies in the world.
2. The purpose of the design review was to examine whether the school would be stable or unstable; whether it would suffer structural failure or not and, if it did, would there be prior warning. I am not personally aware of any design review which has been carried-out to examine whether or not structural failure would occur, but this one did that.
3. Contractually, it can only be issued to you, or to anyone else who asks for it, by Hub.
4. As you can imagine, I have requested this information be sent to Jackie Baillie many, many times since 2018 and each time I have been ignored. I can only assume that John Swinney and Shirley-Anne Somerville, who are both Cabinet Ministers, have refused to allow its release and have refused to allow anyone to talk about it, or to confirm its existence.
5. If this report explains that a design change during construction has made the building unstable and unsafe, then that is the most obvious reason the report is still being withheld and that scenario would put Hub, Mr Swinney and Ms Somerville, in possible breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act. I cannot think of any other explanation; I don't know if anyone else can?
6. Hub and the Council were not given legal advice by Harper MacLeod on this occasion, but by law firms Muckle and Brodies. Make of that what you will. Nevertheless, the teachers at the school are currently in the driving seat as far as law in concerned and if they request this design review, then it must be provided.
I realize that I have explained the above many times but, now that the school is open, if an accident occurs then everyone is in a completely different situation with respect to the Health and Safety at Work Act and there are plenty of current examples which demonstrate that.
Finally, there is something far wrong when a member of the public has not only to advise the Scottish Government on engineering, but has to advise on law as-well. It has been an absolutely astonishing failure, hasn't it? What could have been resolved in 8-weeks has taken 8-years already; all because everyone is afraid to communicate. As I have said before, credit is due to Jackie Baillie who has proven to be determined and unstoppable during this period.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie and Gary,
It looks to me as though complicity has been alleged between Ogilvie Construction and Harper MacLeod. The Directors of both companies are now under great pressure and if collusion has indeed taken place then that will astonish the public and will mark a new low-point for the legal profession in Scotland.
I am not copying this through to the Press because I want to get this finished without going back to them. Should I be waiting any longer though? This all sounds as though it can be finished now.
Remember please Gary, it is all three points to be resolved; not one out of three or two out of three.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie and Gary,
Ogilvie Construction only ever had four Directors, but they appointed another three Directors early last week. Presumably that means the dam has broken?
I put this down to the involvement of Hugh Mallett and Jackie Baillie should be recognized for having the enterprise to contact him when she did. Otherwise, this would have continued indefinitely.
Can we put a deadline on my involvement being over by the end of next week please? - that's Friday 2nd September. I keep saying this and no-one ever responds and so can one of you respond please and let me know?
My continuing involvement beyond Friday means that I will apportion all blame to the Directors of Harper MacLeod and the public would probably support that opinion. Let them know please Gary and give them the opportunity to act.
You may recall the "Site 85" example I sent you from KSA. That shows the way professionals handle a situation like this and the timeline shows that more progress was made, without lawyers, in the first fortnight than we have made here in 8-years. I attach another copy of "Site 85" - send this on to Euan Pirie please Gary.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie,
It is for your action too - otherwise, nothing happens. The Email below is sadly very typical of the Scottish response and if Mr Caldow issued a reply like that in KSA, or almost anywhere else, he would have been in serious trouble years ago.
The end date is for Mr McAteer, Harper MacLeod and the Scottish Government to work to and I accept that, but talk to them and manage them, please. Otherwise, they do nothing.
The starting point here should have been: "Assume that the Contractor is lying to you and check everything they say." That was never followed and so a small problem has grown exponentially. I don't know what Hugh Mallett's 2018 opinion was, but I expect that the school probably cannot be fixed now - it certainly cannot be fixed easily and that happens very infrequently in the world of engineering. Is there a danger of sudden structural failure? Yes, there is.
I'm all for keeping the Press as an option, if deadlines keep being missed. It needs to be front page though and very specific, but I think that can be done at the stage we are at now.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
On Sunday, 28 August 2022 at 12:02:30 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Dear Stephen
I don’t think I am waiting on replies from anyone else in relation to your case but I will check on Monday. The question of ending your involvement by a particular date is not something that I have any control over.
Best wishes
Jackie
Dear Jackie and Gary,
Please bear with me while I reiterate the one point which I fear is getting lost here: When a whistle-blower steps forward to warn that something is wrong and is not going to work, responsibility for investigating that lies with the client (Hub in this case), not with the whistle-blower.
In engineering, is the whistle-blower right or is he wrong? - that should be sorted-out straight away, within hours, or a day or two. This is explained in a 20-second extract from 'ASCE Ethics Case Study 1' (5.30mins - 5.50mins). BuroHappold are world engineers and they are aware of this of course, but no-one in Scotland appears to be aware of it and hence I have had to carry-out the investigations myself. You can tell that the situation he has been left in has made the engineer very angry and the situation I have been left in makes me angry too; both situations are analogous, aren't they.
This has been the accepted protocol in engineering for as long as I can remember and, as the video explains, there is good reason for that. I have therefore acted correctly, communicated very clearly and no-one else has done that. As you both know, what is vexing me just now is that everyone else has been paid and has had a career for the past 8-years and I have not. So, can I ask that you both pass this on to those who you consider are best placed to resolve it to an outcome? Perhaps Lorne Crerar and Euan Pirie of Harper MacLeod, and the present and former Education Ministers at Holyrood? I will leave that to both of you to decide.
You are part of the Scottish Government and if you stop, then they all stop and Mr McAteer is part of the Scottish legal profession and if he stops, then they all stop. Both are looking for any excuse to stop and so do not give them an excuse, please. What I can say is that we are at the end and it is either resolved by the end of this week, or it may be time for the Press.
The Hub Consortium appear to be in breach of ASCE Ethics Case Studies #1, 2 and 4. (#3 describes handing bags of money over in exchange for Government contracts and no-one is accusing Hub and their partners of doing that). But, being in breach of 3 out of 4 would, I imagine, attract serious jail time in most jurisdictions in the world, especially in the event of a serious accident or fatality at the school, and I'm sure that everyone you are talking to at the moment knows that.
I have now written many hundreds of Emails on this subject. It could have been dealt with in the first Email to Harper MacLeod and the negligence and arrogance of one Scottish lawyer has been the root cause of this needless prolongation. Can I leave it to both of you to bring it to an outcome for me by the end of this week please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl and ICE,
I received the trailing response from Jackie Baillie earlier. My preference until this point has been not to go back to the Press, but that may not be possible. My only stipulation for the Press is that it should be a front page story this time, but which-ever way they want to approach it, and there appear to be a number of possibilities, I will leave to them.
This time, I would expect to see participation from both the ICE and the EIS as you have both been involved for many months now. Let me set that out for you as follows:
1. The only engineer with authority to declare the building compliant and therefore 'safe', or non compliant and therefore 'unsafe', is Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold. He is a professional of the highest integrity and he will respond to you. The only provision that BuroHappold are allowed, contractually, is that they respond to the EIS via their client, Hub. Has that been done?
2. The Education Minister's letter of 17th March (attached) confirms that she has over-arching responsibility for the safety of the school and that she has accepted the opinion of the Council and the visual inspection reports of engineers Fairhurst of Aberdeen in making her final determination. The reports are attached to this Email alongside the Soil Investigation Report, which is also by Fairhurst of Aberdeen. I have already pointed-out that the reports are bogus and I have made the analogy with the Hyatt Regency Collapse of 1981, in which 114 people were killed. The engineer's report on that occasion was also bogus and claimed that steel connections had been checked and were compliant. It later turned-out that they hadn't been checked, they weren't compliant and they failed, suddenly, and that is what caused all of those deaths. The ASCE acted immediately to revoke the licences of the engineers who were involved in the project and that set the precedent which has been followed, by the ASCE, for the past 40-years. Any engineer who issues a bogus report has his licence revoked. I am not asking the ICE to revoke anyone's licence, but I have asked you to ensure that the reports by Fairhurst are either corrected in line with the comments and re-issued, or they are withdrawn. Has that been done?
It is possible that the ICE will shoulder much of the responsibility for this because, as it stands at the moment, the school is being declared safe and no-one is communicating and their justification for doing that is the visual inspection reports provided by your members. The present stasis is therefore being caused by, and prolongated by, the ICE and that should not be the case. You are aware of this situation and you have been given many opportunities to intervene (Bob Matheson even asked you several months ago), to ensure that professional standards are maintained and I personally see it as very disappointing that you have elected not to do that. I do not wish to overstate anything at this stage, but the ASCE would have reacted entirely differently had their members been involved and I do not think there is any doubt about that.
The solution is firstly for both the ICE and the EIS to read the BuroHappold report, by Hugh Mallett. I would warn you, it is many pages long and it is very, very detailed. This is a full design review which leaves nothing unanswered and I would encourage both of you to demand to see it by close of business today. Hub will send it to you and if Hub refuse, then I will engage with the Press. Secondly, I would encourage the ICE to either withdraw the visual inspection reports by Fairhurst, or demand that they are reissued with the comments answered.
That will get us finished at long last. I think we can leave Aberdeen City Council out of this now and the main protagonists are myself, the Scottish Government and their lawyers Harper MacLeod, the ICE and the EIS. Is that fair?
As I set-out to Jackie Baillie and Gary McAteer below, I am wanting to end my involvement by the end of this week as I am truly sick and tired of doing everyone's job for them. I would conclude by pointing-out that the Cole Inquiry recommendations were issued only a few years ago in February 2017 and this example shows that the situation now is even worse than it was then and I think the public would be rightly appalled by that.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Stephen
I think it is time for the press again. I have checked this morning and there are no outstanding responses from the Scottish Government, the Council or anyone else.
Best wishes
Jackie
Dear Cheryl and ICE,
I should have attached the trailing information yesterday: 'Whistleblowing; The Institution of Structural Engineers' - This is UK-wide guidance and it has been in existence for the past 25-years. Why does it not work in Scotland? - that's a question for the Institution of Civil Engineers.
Regarding the Press - I will contribute, but this would be best taken forward by the EIS. It is the safety of the Teachers and pupils who use this building every day that interests the public. My experience of the Scottish Government has been that they maintain their position through refusing to communicate and everyone somehow accepts that. Apart from visual inspection reports, they have nothing in terms of evidence and that has always been the case.
I can advise that the actual bearing capacity of the soil supporting the building, in winter time, is less than 50% of that required to safely support the weight of the building and subsidence of the land surrounding the school is already occurring. Less than 50% of design capacity was the extent of under-design that caused the sudden collapse of the Hyatt Regency walkways in 1981 and so it is not possible for the Brimmond design to work.
The School was designed correctly, but a construction mistake has resulted in a progressive and cumulative loss of bearing capacity which will ultimately cause sudden structural failure to occur and that outcome is now very close. In the same way the Hyatt Regency was doomed for failure, Brimmond School is doomed for failure too and I have been stating this consistently for the past 8-years; nothing that I am saying now has changed in that time.
Presumably the Teachers at the school already know that something isn't right with this building and once the story is explained in the Press, that should instigate a proper engineering review of the design and what has gone wrong. BuroHappold are great engineers and if anyone can design a solution, it is them.
When a story appears, that will encourage the opinions and recommendations of experts and that will bring closure for everyone. That's the nature of world-wide engineering, that's the way it works and the opinions from ASCE members are a good and very typical illustration of that. The continuing silence from John Swinney, Shirley-Anne Somerville and their team tells me they know that they are beaten.
Dear Mr McAteer,
I am expecting an outcome to be presented to me on Friday 2nd September and thereafter I want to end my involvement and return to work as no member of the public can withstand loss of income on this scale. As I understand it, you are not waiting on anything from me and so please advise me on this. I do not wish to have to write any more Emails and so please respond.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Whistleblowing - The Institution of Structural Engineers
Whistleblowing - The Institution of Structural Engineers
Provides an overview of whistleblowing and how to raise a concern.
Gary,
Yesterday's was my last Email to the EIS and ICE. The EIS to can now take this to the Press if they want to, but that decision is for them. The only evidence Hub have presented are visual inspection reports which have been disputed. None of my evidence has been disputed. Who do the ICE and BuroHappold agree with? They don't have to answer to the Press of course - but they do have to answer Hub and Hub has to answer the EIS. So, all ask Hub, via the Press, and they get the answer that way.
As I have said many times, I want to be finished with this by the end of this week. The two letters by Jonathan Moore are attached and I am attributing all responsibility to him. Hence, as I see it, the Scottish Government should be paying and I'm sure that Ogilvie see it that way too.
I am not copying this Email to the Press or to anyone else, but these two letters are the most fundamentally stupid letters I can ever remember reading and you can see the needless problems they have caused. That was always going to happen and I could tell that he was going to turn a relatively small problem, which could be solved, into an impossible one and so it has turned-out and the Scottish Government are responsible for absolutely everything now.
The only engineer with authority is BuroHappold and my expectation is that they have said that it cannot be fixed. They first said it in 2018 and they have been repeating it ever since. The school is open again, no-one has done anything, no-one is communicating, there are hundreds of Emails from me which have been ignored and I don't need to tell you what that means in the event of an accident.
So, I'm looking for a meeting on Friday to finalize this. Can you ask Natalie to set-up a time please? I understand that Harper MacLeod have been extensively involved in this case for months now and so they want to attend too. The names I have are Mr Crerar, Mr Lloyd and Mr Darroch and so either can attend. There is no use in Ogilvie attending because they will just hold-up the letters and say: "Not me". Let me know today, or tomorrow at the latest please. By all means pass this Email over to Harper MacLeod as it is primarily for their action.
By the way, the letters attached are great examples of 'Jack Gillum' letters and if we are about to find that Hugh Mallett will not accept the safety of this design, and we all suspect that he won't, then they look set to cost the public about £30m and, if Hub are found to have covered this up, that could be the end of Hub, Jonathan Moore and a good number of others and I don't think there is any doubt about that.
This is copied only to Jackie Baillie and so please pass it over to Harper MacLeod and get-on and arrange the meeting for Friday please.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie and Gary,
There are about 40No people involved in this just now, at least 10No from Harper MacLeod. No-one has lost their job and some have even been promoted.
That is not the case with myself and that is one of the situations that I want to resolve at a meeting tomorrow. Is this meeting going ahead or not - can you tell me Gary, please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie and Gary,
There is a possibility of another job in KSA and if it materializes then I will most likely accept. That solution suits everyone and so that's that out of the way.
I still want to be paid the correct amount and for those who assisted me get to this stage to be paid also. If the same rules apply in Scotland as apply elsewhere in the UK, then that's not a complex calculation.
Can this be sorted-out by Friday, please?. So, everything agreed at a meeting on Friday? My wife has the car this week and so if I come into Glasgow it will take me 2 hours to get there and so I want to arrive, get this agreed and then leave again.
I am not copying this to the Press, but I assume that I have been proven correct? That's my guess anyway.
Let me know please.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Jackie and Gary,
I have not had confirmation of a meeting date and time yet and that is very disappointing. Contact me as soon as you can with this information, please.
I received an automated response from Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold stating that he was on annual vacation and he would be returning to work on Tuesday 13th September. I have mentioned this before, but he is the only engineer with contractual authority to adjudicate in this case and so any questions that any of you have regarding the school can only be answered by him. I presume that's what everyone is waiting on?
I mentioned Bob Matheson in my previous Email. His advice to me when this started was that the whistleblower should be removed from all aspects of the case between week 4 and week 8. There is no need for anyone who makes a public interest protected disclosure to be involved beyond week 8. I have been involved in this case for 8-years now and that is a source of great frustration to me and my family as you can imagine.
I am not asking you for an explanation as to why this is happening in Scotland. All I am asking is that you start communicating with me and we get this resolved.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
We are close to the end and it looks to me as though we all have Jackie Baillie to thank for that. Many are aware of this case now and someone has decided to change their position and that may have been the Institution of Civil Engineers because the comparison that will be drawn between their contribution and that of the American Society of Civil Engineers makes them look, dare I say it, less honest than they should be. They should be in the driving seat and deciding who the 'Jack Gillum' character is at the end of a thorough investigation. Instead of that, they are at risk of being accused of being silent and therefore sanctioning the issuance of bogus reports by their members, over a 6-year time frame, regarding the safety of a public building and that is a sad situation for any professional body to find itself in.
So, what is a whistleblower supposed to do in Scotland? Shirley-Ann Somerville says that our laws are as good as England's laws. If you go to a Scottish lawyer, and I have been to two, then it will cost you somewhere between £40,000 and £50,000, your case is almost guaranteed to fail and you will be unemployable for the rest of your life. Below is Bruce Caldow from Harper MacLeod's advice from 18th May 2015 and it is obvious nonsense, isn't it? Your advice to me, 18-months later, was that if the Scottish Government says that they have investigated this and found nothing amiss then drop it, it's over. It will cost you too much to continue. £40,000 - £50,000 for total crap, then.
"The judge will primarily look at whether or not the dismissal was caused by a disclosure.
Although there are other important issues to be considered such as whether or not the disclosures fell within one of the types of subjects that can be the subject of disclosure, and whether or not you made the disclosure properly, in the public interest, and indeed whether or not you in fact made the disclosures (given that the respondent does not appear to accept you made any such disclosure), the primary focus of the judge in practice will be to establish whether or not (i) you were dismissed by performance reasons (as contended by Ogilvie) or (ii) your dismissal was by reason of whistleblowing". - Bruce Caldow, Harper MacLeod, 18/5/2015..
I understand that Ogilvie Construction are now submitting a design for rectification of the school and that's been done in the past few days. So, I appear to have been right all-along. Scottish lawyers though are beyond learning and so where does that leave members of the public, like me, and who do they report a whistleblowing case to in the future? There are not many MSP's with the resourcefulness of Jackie Baillie to lend a hand and so that is a question that should be answered. Will the Scottish Government implement changes? - probably not. Will the legal profession implement changes? - probably not and so all we can say is the present system in Scotland doesn't work, it is dysfunctional and if you are thinking about making a public interest protected disclosure in Scotland - don't do it.
Is that the way it stands? I copy in Roddy Dunlop as he has more gumption than most and if there is a solution that works then he will know what it is. I suspect though that there is no solution. The public in Scotland is saddled with the lawyers we've got, the politicians we've got and the SLCC. Not a good outlook then, is it.
My wife returned home without a problem yesterday, but this needs to be solved to an outcome. My point in telling you about that was to make the point that whilst you and Harper MacLeod sit on your hands, life goes-on for the rest of us. I have explained to you many times now that, for me, it has been a life of attrition for the past 8-years whilst the Scottish civil-servants responsible for creating this mess, and I gave you the examples of Gayle Gorman, Euan Couperwhite and Helen Shanks, simply move, seamlessly, from being employed by Aberdeen City Council pre-Brimmond to being employed by the Scottish Government post-Brimmond and so life goes-on for them. They are somehow protected, aren't they.
We can now, at long last, leave the school to be sorted-out by Ogilvie Construction and BuroHappold but I expect my situation to be resolved to an outcome this week by lawyers Harper MacLeod and Beltrami. You may both be working on it already but, if you're not, then please get started now and copy this Email to your colleagues at Harper MacLeod today, please.
Finally, the above 5-lines from Bruce Caldow of Harper MacLeod have left us all in a real mess, haven't they. Who, in Scotland, do I complain to about this? - and for God's sake don't say: "The SLCC".
I have not copied this through to the Press, the EIS or to anyone else, as I want to have this resolved to an outcome within the next few days.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
The following is what I am expecting agreement on:
1. Settlement
2. Job overseas
3. Payment for 3rd parties
This can all be agreed without the need for meetings.
We are in a position now where I have done all that I can, so too has Jackie Baillie and she has made that clear.
In KSA, as in many countries, they don't allow lawyers anywhere near engineering because their experience has been that lawyers don't know what they are doing. I accept the initial mistake was made by Harper MacLeod, but you've had 6-years to achieve an outcome and you haven't done that, principally because you won't communicate.
As before, I am not copying-in the Press or anyone else as my clear preference is to get this settled as quietly and as quickly as possible now.
So, start today please. The safety of the school is a separate issue. The EIS have been kept informed over the past 3-years and so it is up to them, the Council and all of the other public bodies to reach agreement on that themselves.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Mallett,
The school is now open again and so it is incumbent on all of us to resolve this. It has been accepted that a change to BuroHappold's design was carried-out in July 2014. That change involved the installation of a continuous 5m deep, clay-filled trench along the west perimeter of the site. The disagreement is centred around whether that change has resulted in a reduction in the bearing capacity of the soil under the foundations due to liquefaction and scour and I attach photographs taken at the school which show what I consider to be the effects of liquefaction and scour. This is not a minor disagreement then and upon its resolution rests the matters of whether the school is safe to use and whether it can be rectified at this stage.
I looked at it in August 2014 and decided that it would result in a reduction in bearing capacity and I relied upon the Fairhurst Soil Investigation Report (attached) in reaching that decision. The Contractor, the Scottish Government, Hub and the Council have all disagreed with me and said that there would be no reduction. So, there is an impasse. That is not new in engineering of course, but these situations can usually be agreed within days or weeks, but this impasse has existed for 8-years, simply because everyone is terrified to communicate. Regardless of that, I am a member of the public against many vested interests in Scotland, but I have been supported by a large number of worldwide engineering experts and I remain confident that I am correct.
You stated in your letter to Jackie Baillie MSP that you will not communicate with me and that is accepted. However, I understand that you have a duty to respond to your client, Hub and it will then be for Hub to determine who they send that opinion to, although they will presumably send it to the EIS and the Council and they will do that very quickly.
The reason that I am addressing this to you is because you are the only person with the authority to provide this final opinion and it is clear that your opinion is the one that everyone is waiting for. I was the engineer with authority over construction and you are the engineer with authority over design. I have made my opinion known and I am now asking you to do the same.
Let me say that this has already resulted in a 'geotechnical limit state failure' and the next failure will be a 'structural limit state failure' which could be catastrophic and will, in all likelihood, happen without warning. What is alarming me is that the Council has installed settlement markers around the perimeter of the building, no doubt assuming that structural failure will manifest slowly, but that rarely happens in real life and so it is not something that should bring with it any kind of public confidence in the safety of this building.
As I say above, many pupils and teachers are now using the building every day and BuroHappold has a contractual, legal and public interest professional duty to provide your opinion and so can you do that and respond to your client, please.
Dear Mr McAteer,
I still haven't heard anything from you regarding an outcome. Is there a problem with this? Let me know please.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Mr Mallett,
I understand that the concepts of liquefaction and scour may not be understood to many listed here and so I attach a recent example of a catastrophic collapse due to liquefaction and scour that I expect will be familiar to everyone. This article explains the probable cause of the 2021 Champlain Towers collapse in USA. It was written only a few days after the collapse occurred and it was one particular expert's opinion of the most likely cause of collapse. A very similar explanation has recently been accepted by a Judge in the USA and so what he describes as a 'hypothesis' in the article, is no longer a hypothesis.
The land around Champlain Towers was sinking too, at a rate of 1-2mm per year which doesn't appear significant but, when it is cumulative year upon year, then it is significant and, as we all witnessed, its effects can be sudden and devastating.
I have made the analogy between Brimmond School and Champlain Towers many times over the past year; you may be aware of that, but you may not be aware of it. There are differences of course - Champlain Towers had deep foundations and Brimmond School has shallow foundations; Champlain Towers was subject to tidal flows and Brimmond School is subject to artesian flows. So, it is accepted that there are differences but do these differences make Brimmond School even more susceptible to sudden structural failure? Perhaps they do.
There is no doubt that the land surrounding Brimmond School is sinking at a rate far in excess of 1-2mm per year and the photographs show that liquefaction and scour are both clearly in evidence and that is what makes me believe that we are in a situation that requires your intervention.
I have not read Jackie Baillie's letter to you, but I understand that her expectation, when she contacted you back in April, was that you would investigate and respond immediately so that remedial works could be designed and carried-out during the summer months when the school was closed. Needless to say, that opportunity has now been lost and you now appear to be saying "not me" as if this is now, somehow, someone else's problem to solve.
Can I re-state the position then, as I understand it: There are only two engineers who have authority for ensuring the compliance of the Brimmond design. I have authority because I was the engineer who managed the team who built it and you have authority because you are the engineer who managed the team who designed it. I have made my position known and we are now waiting for you to make your position known. If you look at this scenario in the context of the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981, that explains your responsibilities to communicate and to lead the whole team in all matters of engineering and that includes the client. In the end, all duties to investigate and communicate in a situation like this fall principally to the leader of the engineering design team and that is yourself.
If you have already informed your client, Hub of your opinion and they are refusing to release it to the Council and to the Teaching Unions, and that may be the case, then I would ask that you to inform Jackie Baillie please, so that she can inform me.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
Pass this Email on to your colleagues at HM, please.
I understand they are resolving this to an outcome now. I don't know if that is with you or instead of you but, either way, let them know that I want it concluded by Friday and keep them on-track, please.
Hugh Mallett is back at work tomorrow. I understand that his opinion is the same as mine, but that he has been 'relieved of his duties' so to speak by Hub who want to resolve this matter with their own local engineers and with Visual Inspection Reports. It's not that easy though. There's a Contract in place and so Hugh's opinion and my opinion are the only ones that matter.
Now that Hugh has been compared to Jack Gillum he will get off his hands and start communicating; I know I would.
No doubt the question has been asked of Hugh Mallett: "Is this chap a competent engineer?" My guess is that he has replied: "Yes - he's unusually competent - I only wish there were more like him." However, I might be wrong. I presume that someone has asked him?
So, all that I'm interested in now is an outcome for myself, that's the 3No points we spoke about some time ago - they haven't changed, and we can leave everything else to the EIS.
As before, this Email is not copied to the Press or to anyone else.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Ms Gorman,
Do you intend to respond? Let me set-out the way it stands just now:
1. Contractually, the safety of the 'as-built' design can only be adjudicated by the original designer, BuroHappold. That opinion is then passed to those using the school every day (the Teachers) by the Council via Hub and, legally, it must be passed to the Teachers if they ask for it.
2. When BuroHappold's opinion is issued, it will be for the school owner, Aberdeen City Council, to determine what to do next. They hold all of the statutory duties with regard to public safety and they are, of course, aware of that.
So, the actions are primarily with BuroHappold, Hub, Aberdeen City Council and the EIS but presumably, at the stage we are at now, you are managing this to an outcome? I say that because the over-arching responsibility for setting standards in all Council areas lies with the Scottish Government.
Dear Mr McAteer,
I haven't received a response from you either.
Regardless of who is organizing my exit, I want to be completely finished by the end of this week. Can you pass this message on please?
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
I expect BuroHappold's decision has now been issued; that puts the matter, at long last, in the hands of the EIS and that makes it a criminal investigation from now-on? Someone only has to make a complaint to the police and that should be the EIS. Whistleblowers make protected disclosures in the public interest - they do not walk into police stations 8-years after the event.
The last time I heard anything from you was back in early May and that is not acceptable. Can I ask that you engage with Lorne Crerar of Harper MacLeod and get back to me today, please?
My complaint is against Jonathan Moore and John Swinney and that's all I care about now. My suggestion is that all three of these gentlemen put their heads together and find a solution.
This has not been copied to anyone else.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
https://twitter.com/JohnSwinney
John Swinney is Member of the Scottish Parliament for Perthshire North and Deputy First Minister/Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery in Scottish Government.
Location: EdinburghFollowers: 107KPosts: 13KJoined Date: January 2011
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow - Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Wings Over Scotland| The world's most-read Scottish politics …
wingsoverscotland.com
Global web icon
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
youtube.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
Ogilvie Construction Ltd | LinkedIn
linkedin.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98l3Us8IU-I
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
14:32
Web02/07/2015 · Paul Spinden, former Missouri Court of Appeals judge, recalls the lessons of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway collapse and the potentially catastrophic ...
Author: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Views: 74K
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
Stephen Garvin - Head of Building Standards - The Scottish G…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Euan Couperwhite - Head of Finance, Infrastructure ans Analy…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Kevin Stewart SNP (@KevinStewartSNP) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/lornecrerar
WebProfessor Lorne Crerar CBE - Chairman - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn Professor Lorne Crerar CBE Chairman & Co-Founder at Harper Macleod …
Occupation: Chairman & Co-Founder at Harper Macleod
500+ connections
Title: Chairman & Co-Founder at …
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Scott Kerr - Corporate Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
youtube.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow - Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
Ogilvie Construction Ltd | LinkedIn
linkedin.com
https://twitter.com/KevinStewartSNP
SNP MSP for Aberdeen Central & @scotgov Minister for Mental Wellbeing & Social Care
Location: Aberdeen, ScotlandFollowers: 15KPosts: 27KJoined Date: October 2012
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Jackie Baillie (@jackiebmsp) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
Jonathan Moore - Head of Outcome Agreement Unit - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow - Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/rob-polkinghorne-4b283a28
WebAberdeen City Council. Mar 2018 - Present4 years 7 months. Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Works For: Aberdeen City Council
500+ connections
Title: Chief Operating Officer at …
Location: Greater Aberdeen Area
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Stephen Garvin - Head of Building Standards - The Scottish G…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
SURVEYING DIRECTOR - OGILVIE CONSTRUCTION - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow (@brucecaldow) | Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
https://twitter.com/jackiebmsp
MSP for Dumbarton, Scottish Labour Deputy Leader and Spokesperson for Health, Social Care and Equalities. Constituents email jackie.baillie.msp@parliament.scot
Location: DumbartonFollowers: 26KPosts: 13KJoined Date: May 2012
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Euan Couperwhite - Head of Finance, Infrastructure ans Analy…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
youtube.com
Global web icon
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
All Announcements | funeral-notices.co.uk
funeral-notices.co.uk
Dear Cheryl and Brian,
We may be at the stage now where the police should get involved. There are too many vested interests and communication still appears, to me anyway, to be non-existent and that really is astonishing.
My responsibility was to make a 'Protected Disclosure' and I have done that. The report to the police would be best made by the Teaching Union as you represent the Employees who use this building every day.
The question that will be asked by the police is: "How long have you known about this and what have you done to investigate" and they will establish whether I have been right, wrong, or if I have exaggerated and they will do that very quickly.
Dear Gary,
I am still expecting to exit this by tomorrow and I am depending on you to organize that. I think we can all comfortably say that this has been an exemplar failure as far as whistle-blowing laws are concerned.
Thank you,
S. Dick
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/katherine-white-a8b25355
WebThe Scottish Government About Katherine has played a leading role in the development of Scottish Government policy in a range of technical and high-profile policy areas including …
Works For: The Scottish Government
500+ connections
Title: Deputy Director for …
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Wings Over Scotland| The world's most-read Scottish politics …
wingsoverscotland.com
Global web icon
Stephen Garvin - Head of Building Standards - The Scottish G…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Ogilvie Construction Ltd | LinkedIn
linkedin.com
Global web icon
Jonathan Moore - Head of Outcome Agreement Unit - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-mitchell-55672823
WebAbout. Heading up Harper Macleod's Personal Injury & Reparation team and Insurance Sector Group, I am an experienced Commercial Litigator, …
Occupation: Partner at Harper Macleod LLP
Title: Partner at Harper Macleod LLP
Works For: Harper Macleod LLP
Connections: 481
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
Graham Horsman - Senior Associate - Pinsent Masons | Linke…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Laura Ann Sheridan - Senior Solicitor - Harper Macleod LLP - …
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Ogilvie Construction Ltd | LinkedIn
linkedin.com
Global web icon
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter
twitter.com
High ranking company for you. It's getting better every day and so we are at the end now. Can this go-on any longer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98l3Us8IU-I
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
14:32
Web02/07/2015 · Paul Spinden, former Missouri Court of Appeals judge, recalls the lessons of the Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway collapse and the potentially catastrophic ...
Author: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Views: 74K
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
Kevin Stewart SNP (@KevinStewartSNP) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
Jonathan Moore - Head of Outcome Agreement Unit - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow - Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Jenny Laing has been the problem since the start. I think I mentioned that before. She's the effective Head of the Labour Party in Aberdeen and that has put Jackie Baillie's gas at a peep, so to speak. She retired at the end of last year but she is being correctly called back now to answer for this. Anyway, it looks as though you have been more effective than the Press and I always suspected that might happen. Although the journalists are good, their stories are too easily dismissed by the vested interests. Your web-site is not easily dismissed and we are seeing that now.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/rob-polkinghorne-4b283a28
WebRob Polkinghorne Chief Operating Officer at Aberdeen City Council Greater Aberdeen Area 1,203 followers 500+ connections Join to connect …
Works For: Aberdeen City Council
500+ connections
Title: Chief Operating Officer at …
Location: Greater Aberdeen Area
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Ogilvie Construction Ltd | LinkedIn
linkedin.com
Global web icon
SURVEYING DIRECTOR - OGILVIE CONSTRUCTION - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Jenny Laing - Leader of Aberdeen City Council - Aberdeen Cit…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow (@brucecaldow) | Twitter
twitter.com
Helen Shanks is an interesting case. She's typical of the mediocre talent which has broken through the glass ceiling during the course of the past 10-years. She's now in charge of nursery schools in Dundee but when Brimmond was under construction, she was in charge of Education for Aberdeen. I said "what you are trying to do will never work"; Aberdeen's Clerk of Works said the same thing. She said; "Just ignore these two and let the Contractor get-on with it". Looks as though they have caught-up with her at last and they'll be no more arrogant shit from her now. Idiots like Helen Shanks are capable of doing more damage than a drunk-driver or a gun-man.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/helen-shanks-8574a465
WebHelen Shanks - University of Stirling - United Kingdom | LinkedIn Helen Shanks at United Kingdom55 connections Join to connect Scottish …
Occupation: at
Connections: 55
Title: at
Location: United Kingdom
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Andy Day FCIOB - Construction Operations Director - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
youtube.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow - Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Piper Alpha: Ethics Case Study No. 2 - YouTube
youtube.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
We're in a situation now where there are parents and grandparents of kids attending that school will be asking questions. This another guy who has been secretly involved for years. He's refused to speak to me, but he has assured MSP's that the school is safe and that was at a specially convened meeting of the Education and Skills Committee.
Once BuroHappold get involved though, and they are one of the biggest engineering consultancies in the world, the cover-up is over. They will not participate in any kind of a cover-up over a primary school in Aberdeen. They have nothing to hide and so they are making everything available to Hub and it is for Hub to maintain the cover-up.
That's the position we are at just now.
https://twitter.com/KevinStewartSNP
SNP MSP for Aberdeen Central & @scotgov Minister for Mental Wellbeing & Social Care
Location: Aberdeen, ScotlandFollowers: 15KPosts: 27KJoined Date: October 2012
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
Stephen Garvin - Head of Building Standards - The Scottish G…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow - Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Jackie Baillie (@jackiebmsp) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
Fix problems signing into your Yahoo account
uk.help.yahoo.com
....and this chap is John Swinney's bag-carrier.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-moore-a5b9545
WebView Jonathan Moore’s profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Jonathan has 1 job listed on their profile. ... Solicitor at The Scottish Government United …
Works For: The Scottish Government
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
Title: Head of Outcome Agreement …
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
SURVEYING DIRECTOR - OGILVIE CONSTRUCTION - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Stephen Garvin - Head of Building Standards - The Scottish G…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
Wings Over Scotland| The world's most-read Scottish politics …
wingsoverscotland.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Bob,
All of those that I suspect of being involved in this cover-up appear to be under some sort of investigation and so we must be very close to a conclusion; I have asked Gary McAteer to contact me today to update me on that. You need a certain level of pressure before it all starts to move on its own and we appear to be there now. We have endured years of "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you" and, finally, it appears to be coming to an end.
As you are aware, I suggested to the EIS that they contact the police yesterday and that opens up the possibility of people being interviewed under caution and so that will focus the collective mindset. Plus, it's raining heavily today; that has not focussed anyone's mindset in the past, except mine of course, but it will probably do so now?
I suspect that every case for your organization will be different but, in my opinion, two things have made a contribution to your effort:
1. The input of the American Society of Civil Engineers
1.1 - Their videos, ethics case studies 2 and 4 the Hyatt Regency Collapse and Piper Alpha shows what an engineer's ethical and legal duties are in the prevention of engineering disasters and it shows the necessity of communication amongst all of the parties involved. Scottish lawyers don't seem to get this and that's the problem.
1.2 - Their expert opinions, first issued in 2017, shows how a large number of real experts look at this.
2. The input of George Laird has made all of the correspondence from myself available to anyone who wants to view it on-line. People who view this are going to wonder: "Why has this taken so long and why has no-one investigated this properly?" "Is this building safe or unsafe?" "Why has the Contract not been followed?" "Who is liable to pay for this now and why is insurance not paying?" "Why does no-one communicate?" "Specifically, who is saying that the building is safe and is he/she trained and qualified to make that call?" "Are all of these experts from the ASCE wrong - every one of them - who says they are wrong?"
So, the ASCE and George Laird have done well and just about everyone else has managed not to do well. That's about the size of it.
Ultimate responsibility for this lies with John Swinney as he was the Minister responsible at the time. I am satisfied that he has closed-down all investigations and if his letter attached is untrue (and it almost certainly is), then BuroHappold will of course react to that to protect their reputation. As explained by the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse, if Hugh Mallett allows the impression to be given that he has checked this and it is safe and it then collapses, then he is in for problems. So, as it stands, it will be either John Swinney who will be blamed for this, or Hugh Mallett and I think we all know it is not going to be Hugh Mallett.
I am not copying this through to the Press or to anyone else. I am though expecting a call today from Mr McAteer.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl and Brian,
I did not receive the anticipated notification from Gary McAteer on Friday that an outcome was agreed and so my legal stasis continues. Nevertheless, I presume that the EIS is now leading this investigation with respect to the safety of the school.
If an accident occurs then this will end-up in Court and the outcome of that is unpredictable. There are precedent cases of course and the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981 is closely analogous to Brimmond and I have referred everyone to it many, many times now. It does seem that, when dealing with the Scottish Government and Scottish public bodies, the same information has to be reiterated multiple times before anyone listens. I'm sure that BuroHappold are listening but I'm equally sure that few of the rest of you have been listening.
What that case set into 'engineering professional practice', and into law, was that if an engineer says that he has checked something and it is safe, then he must have done that. In the case of the Hyatt Regency, the engineer said that he had checked the design for compliance, he hadn't and, as a result, a component failed suddenly two years later resulting in 114No deaths and so, since then, it is viewed as a crime under law to say that you have carried-out checks if you have not carried them out.
Hugh Mallett will follow the logic of this argument and he can either agree or disagree with me, as he wishes.
That brings us to John Swinney's letter of 20th December 2017 to Jackie Baillie, attached. John Swinney issued this letter less than 4-weeks after more than 40No experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers explained their opinions on the school. That information was sent to Mr Swinney and so there evidently was 'additional information' and plenty of it. However, that aside, Mr Swinney leaves the reader with the clear impression that BuroHappold have checked this design and they are satisfied that it is compliant.
If Mr Swinney is correct, then all responsibility for the safety of the design rests with BuroHappold, but if Mr Swinney is misleading us, and BuroHappold did not say that, then all responsibility rests with Mr Swinney. The 'Jack Gillum' character is either one of these two gentlemen and, who it is, depends upon whether Mr Swinney's letter is truthful, or not. (I think we all know the answer to that already, don't we?)
Therefore, BuroHappold should make it very, very clear whether that letter is correct, or not. If it is not correct, then the public will be wondering why it has not been questioned, by anyone other than myself, at any time during the past five-years and I think that is a question that could be directed at many of you just now.
Can I leave it to Mr Mallett to answer that for us? The other two checks that John Swinney refers to in his letter are the Visual Inspection Reports by Ramsay and Chalmers and Fairhurst which were both discredited a long time ago and we are all agreed on that? Can I presume the ICE are agreed on that too?
A final word on Police involvement - if we are discussing a situation which is very possibly criminal in nature, then there is a duty to hand all information over to the Police for proper investigation and those who will be consulted are those who work in the school every day and who can see the settlement and flooding taking place first-hand. So, the decision, on whether this is reported to the Police, or not, is for the EIS and not for myself.
On a more positive note, there is obviously far more activity towards finding a solution now and so we are close to the end, but we are not there yet. Whether that is due to BuroHappold's involvement, Press involvement or the possible intervention of the Police I do not know, but something appears to have changed and that is welcome news. Sadly, the experience of the last 8-years would make me advise anyone thinking of making a 'Public Interest Protected Disclosure' in Scotland, not to do it. Just walk away. There are far too many vested interests here and you inevitably end up having to do everything yourself, against impossible odds, and that is never going to work for anyone.
Dear Mr McAteer,
As stated previously, responsibility for my circumstances lies with John Swinney and Jonathan Moore and so please proceed on that basis. I understand that Harper MacLeod are still very much involved, although my experience has been that they will only make this situation even more mixed-up than it already is. I have worked with companies of all types, from all over the world and I have to say that Harper MacLeod are one of the few that I would call a 'delinquent' company. I suggested several years ago that the Scottish Government removed them from the public payroll until this case was resolved and, had that been done at the time, this would have been finalized by now and I do not think there is any doubt about that. If your profession cannot keep pace with the speed of construction and if you will not communicate with anyone, then keep away from construction; it's that simple and I'm sure that is a solution that would suit most of us very well at the moment. It is difficult not to conclude that lawyers, along with Hub, who are both paid in Scotland to protect the public interest, are those who are actually working against the public interest by preventing this school from being properly checked by experts in 2014 - would that criticism be fair - that would explain why whistle-blowers have no chance of achieving justice in Scotland, wouldn't it?
Thank you,
S. Dick
https://www.linkedin.com/company/harper-macleod-llp
Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn Harper Macleod LLP Law Practice Here with you, here for you. Leading independent Scottish law firm, offering a complete range of legal services. Follow View all 301...
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Laura Ann Sheridan - Senior Solicitor - Harper Macleod LLP - …
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow - Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
A different kind of law firm - Harper Macleod LLP
harpermacleod.co.uk
Global web icon
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter
twitter.com
Dear Jackie and Gary,
Can I ask that my situation be resolved to an outcome this week please. I have been asking this question, almost weekly, since May and nothing ever gets done. Each time I ask Gary he advises me to ask Jackie and each time I ask Jackie she advises me to ask Gary. Can you both produce a joint effort over the next couple of days and get this finished please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary,
The following is from Professor Robert Rennie of HM and it describes the situation alluded to earlier by Jackie. I made a whistleblowing complaint to all of the parties involved, 8-years ago, as he says, and no-one investigated. At the stage we are at now, that's a pretty bad situation which puts it into the realms of criminal law, not employment law. I presume that Hugh Mallett has spoken and it's bad news? I thought that would happen.
"3 At the time you instructed this firm you had already made complaints principally to Ogilvie but also to others. There is no question of Harper Macleod being instructed to make whistleblowing complaints. The whistleblowing issue arose in relation to your claim for unfair dismissal. What could have been argued was that you were entitled to raise the whistleblowing issue and that you should not have been dismissed for that reason".
Contact me tomorrow please with a solution.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
On Sunday, 2 October 2022 at 18:49:09 BST, Stephen Dick wrote:
Dear Gary,
Please liaise with Jackie on this and respond to me tomorrow.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
On Sunday, 2 October 2022 at 18:37:17 BST, Stephen Dick wrote:
Dear Jackie,
That is not the case, I am seeking redress from John Swinney and Jonathan Moore, of the Scottish Government. I explained that yesterday. Mr McAteer might be able to pursue it on his own, but it sounded to me as if he required your help.
Let me know how you want me to pursue this from here, Jackie? I want to have it finished by the end of this week and if that means I have to contact everyone again, then I will do so.
The way whistleblowing is supposed to work is that I make a 'protected public interest disclosure', that gets taken from me and dealt with to a conclusion by others.
In most countries in the world, the others are usually engineering experts and they conclude within a few weeks. In Scotland it is lawyers and that is why it doesn't work here.
So, who is going to take this to a conclusion on my behalf? Is it yourself, or Gary McAteer or both of you together?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
On Sunday, 2 October 2022 at 18:19:43 BST, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:
Dear Stephen
As I understand the position, you are seeking redress from your former employer. That is a legal matter and I am not a lawyer. I therefore cannot help further.
Best wishes
Jackie
Sent from Outlook for iOS
From: Stephen Dick
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2022 6:15:04 PM
To: Gary McAteer ; Baillie J (Jackie), MSP
Cc: Bob Matheson
Subject: This Week
CAUTION: This e-mail originated from outside of The Scottish Parliament. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Jackie and Gary,
Can I ask that my situation be resolved to an outcome this week please. I have been asking this question, almost weekly, since May and nothing ever gets done. Each time I ask Gary he advises me to ask Jackie and each time I ask Jackie she advises me to ask Gary. Can you both produce a joint effort over the next couple of days and get this finished please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Ms Gorman,
I understand that things are moving quickly at last and so permit me to update yourself and the others on where we currently stand:
1. BuroHappold have been consulted for an updated opinion, which means that all guidance on the safety of the school will come from them. They are the original designers who understand the ground conditions and the reliance their building design places upon them and so I would urge everyone to leave all aspects of engineering design and risk management to their guidance from now-on.
2. When I contacted your team at Aberdeen City Council in October 2014, it was to say: "Stop now and get the ground checked because, if you continue, this building is doomed for failure". As we now know, you didn't stop and didn't get it checked and so now everyone is again in the hands of the original designer, BuroHappold, and whether or not the building can be made viable again, depends upon their guidance. What I am saying is that this situation could very easily have been avoided and I think we can all accept that now?
I have paid a heavy price over the years for taking that position. Previously, I have always been told: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you"; That's one of those amorphous statements; no names were ever provided but the impression given was that I was the only person who was questioning the safety of this building. However, I persisted and we later found out from the American Society of Civil Engineers, and now from BuroHappold, that I have been correct all along. Forgive me, but I think most members of the public would be surprised and angered by that sequence of events.
The advice I have followed over the years is explained in the attachment from the Institution of Structural Engineers. This explains it in a few lines and Bob Matheson, who is copied into this Email, is "Protect's" Head of Advocacy and Advice and he knows more about this subject, and about this case, than anyone. I have followed this advice and so can I ask that everyone reads it and understands from it the responsibilities that I have as an engineer? Every engineer has a professional, ethical and legal responsibility to "do the right thing" and what I did in reporting this to you 2014, was no more than that. At the point we are at now, I am passing this over to you and it is for you to follow your professional, ethical and legal guidance on what it directs you to do from here.
I have been trying to remove myself from this situation since early May and, as I have explained many times, but I will do so again, responsibility for my situation lies with John Swinney and Jonathan Moore of the Scottish Government. The problem that I have found is that no-one responds to correspondence; parliamentarians don't respond, civil-servants don't respond and lawyers don't respond. Hence, nothing moves forward, let alone moves forward to a conclusion. I have asked both Jackie Baillie MSP and Gary McAteer to progress this for me this week but, guess what, neither has responded.
BuroHappold have responded which leaves Mr Swinney with personal responsibility for the safety of the school, but he has always refused to communicate in the past and so it appears to me that you are the civil-servant with responsibility for resolving this case to a conclusion. Therefore, can I ask you to engage with Jackie Bailley and Gary McAteer today, to move this towards a conclusion by the end of this week please?
One final point I would make to you is that when you fail to communicate and fail to engage, this situation doesn't go-away; it only gets worse and we are seeing that now, aren't we? BuroHappold are engineers who understand very well the value of communication in preventing engineering disasters and they will take a entirely different view on this than you have taken so far. Sadly, with the on-set of wet weather soon to be upon us, it is obvious that decisions need to be made very quickly now, before it is too late.
Dear Mr McAteer,
Can you contact Ms Gorman today please and lead this to a conclusion for me? Jackie Baillie has offered her assistance to you in the past and I'm sure will do so again, but we should be finished by the end of this week please.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Ms Gorman,
I notice that seasonal heavy rain has now started and this will go-on intermittently for the next 6-months. BuroHappold will explain to you what effect that has on the stability of the soil and, ergo, to the stability of the building.
As I understand it, both myself and BuroHappold have passed all opinions over to you. I have not received any questions, I don't know if BuroHappold have, but our information has been submitted.
The 'Visual Inspection Reports' which were presented to me by Hub, via Aberdeen City Council, appear to me to be entirely wrong. I don't know what the ICE and BuroHappold's opinions are on these reports, but I would not rely on any of them.
Responsibility for the safety of the building therefore lies primarily with the Scottish Government under the Education Scotland Act, but also with Aberdeen City Council and, to a lesser extent, the EIS under the Health and Safety at Work Act.
If there is one engineer that can help you at the moment, it is BuroHappold.
Dear Mr McAteer,
I believe that progress is being made and I reiterate that I expect to have a solution presented to me by the end of this week. Everyone else, noted above, is being paid and I am not being paid so my instruction is to leave this to be finalized by them and not by me.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Mr McAteer,
Please arrange a meeting in your offices for this Friday, which will be a closing meeting that allows me to leave this subject for the rest of you to resolve from here.
It appears that I have been correct all-along and it is very disappointing that I have received so little support within Scotland during these past 8-years.
I will be expecting to recover my loses over that period of time and be returned to employment, but I will leave all of that to you.
If I can remind all of you of the expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers that contributed their opinions on this subject in late 2017. Bruce Grayson said: "This is just a botched building job. Someone provided a specific foundation solution, but it was ignored. If you don't want to use expert advice, don't ask for it!" Hugh Mallett will have his own expert view on this of course but this, for me, explains the problem very concisely.
I think that only the two of us are required at the meeting but let me know what you recommend and ask Natalie to put it in the diary please.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Mr McAteer,
The investigation is now well enough advanced that I have asked to be released on Friday. My responsibility was to make a 'Protected Disclosure' back in 2014, that's all - but I have had to do absolutely everything, for whatever reason.
Therefore, ask Natalie to provide me a time for the meeting. Whoever you all elect to hold responsible for this foul-up is of no interest to me at the moment. I want my personal case to be resolved, to an agreed outcome, on Friday please.
I am waiting for your response.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl and Brian,
Whilst I am keeping you and the others informed of my situation, the road ahead for the Teaching Unions is relatively clear and is described in the Cole Inquiry Report of 2017.
Edinburgh City Council made the decision to fix their schools very quickly, within a few days. Aberdeen City Council are taking an entirely different approach and it is for the Teaching Unions to work around that roadblock from here; I cannot do it for you. There may be a public expectation that the recommendations of Cole Inquiry example would be followed in this case, but that decision is for the EIS and Aberdeen City Council.
One thing that has been made clear over the past years is that the treatment of whistle-blowers in Scotland is unsatisfactory. I have worked in Africa and the Middle-East and this is the most plainly delinquent Government and legal profession that I have experienced anywhere. How and why they both get away with it is what surprises me. The consequences of this of course are tragic and are obvious for all to see.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl and Brian,
Now that we are moving towards a conclusion, I attach ASCE Comments and Opinions of November 2017 and the Deputy First Minister's letter of December 2017. You have of course seen these two items many, many times before but these are the key items.
When I read ASCE Comments and Opinions for the first time, I thought they were alarming and should be actioned straight away. BuroHappold and the ICE can speak for themselves, but I would be surprised if they reacted any differently when they first read this submission. It is unusual to find this level of conformity amongst the opinions of many highly regarded senior engineers and I did not expect for a moment that they would be ignored, but they have been ignored; sadly, by all of you.
The Deputy First Minister read them and determined that they didn't amount to anything that he didn't know already and that the "case was closed". In most jurisdictions, the intervention of a Parliamentarian would be used to open up an investigation, in Scotland such an intervention is used to close it down and if the Deputy First Minister closes an investigation down then it is closed down permanently and the events of the past 6-years have proven that, haven't they.
I am particularly keen to know if the opinion he attributed to BuroHappold is correct; I suspect it is not correct and perhaps all the rest of you know that by now? What a disgraceful mess. As I alluded to this morning, this would be the type of misfeasance that would incur really serious sanction almost anywhere else in the world.
The purpose of my earlier Email was to make the point that when everyone listens to a whistleblower and investigates straight away, then everyone wins. When you do not do that, then everyone loses and that is what we are seeing now. The longer it continues, the more the losses increase and they could rise exponentially at any time from now and I have explained that to you already.
As you know, I have always considered this to have been a case which was so simple it could have been resolved in a couple of weeks in 2014. Sorting it all out from here is therefore a problem for all the rest of you as you are all being paid to do that. As everyone knows, I am expecting to be released from the iniquitous situation that I have been left in and I am expecting that to happen very quickly now.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Even Hugh Mallett is getting shafted just now. One of the best engineers in the UK. It just shows you though, speak-up straight away or else you end up getting sucked into the vortex some years later.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/stephen-hugh-mallett-95325821
About. Hugh is a Chartered Geologist and registered Specialist in Land Condition (SiLC) with a wide variety of professional experience gained over 35 years. He …
Occupation: Technical Director at Buro Happold
Title: Technical Director at Buro …
Works For: Buro Happold
500+ connections
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Hugh Mallett - Buro Happold
burohappold.com
Global web icon
Gary McAteer - Director - Beltrami & Company Ltd, Solicitors .…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow (@brucecaldow) | Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
Scott Kerr - Corporate Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
linkedin.com
The meeting's on Thursday, George:
Gary,
Pass this on if you think it necessary please. These are my expectations:
1. Settlement: On the basis that Gayle Gorman has doubled her salary, and everyone else has remained roughly static in terms of salary and no-one other than myself has lost their job - I do not expect to be losing-out at-all financially. Attached are my potential earnings and they are as high as Gayle Gorman's and there is a reason for that.
2. Job: Anywhere overseas.
3. Payment for 3rd parties: There are 3No 3rd parties and I want each to be paid.
The way I would like to look at this is that I should be free from risk from now on. So far, those that have been insulated from all risk are those that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (for example) would incarcerate for a period of up to 6-years.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary,
It takes me two and a half hours to get to your office from where I live. So, it is essential that we get everything finalized tomorrow; that is all three points below.
I don't want to sand-dance around for half an hour, or an hour, and the meeting ending with you promising to do things because you never do them.
If you are not going to be ready for tomorrow, then postpone until Friday please. Let me know today if you want to do that because I will be leaving in the early afternoon.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
I've added a couple of paragraphs. Nothing you haven't seen before. Review as you like before you send but the engineering content is fine.
I understand that constant reviews do not help anyone and so I will leave it at that now. I'm happy with this.
I will get-on and follow up on the job in KSA. All I am asking you to do now (and that is yourself, Jackie and possibly Bob) is follow-up on getting my losses assessed and paid, and the 3rd Parties paid, by the Scottish Government. As I explained yesterday, that should start today.
Once that is done then we are all finished. This can be left to the EIS to pursue, if they wish to do so.
----- Forwarded message -----
From: Stephen Dick
To: Gary McAteer
Cc: Baillie J (Jackie) MSP ; Bob Matheson
Sent: Thursday, 13 October 2022 at 22:48:10 BST
Subject: Letter to Hugh Mallett
Gary,
Trailing is letter to Hugh Mallett. He's an expert engineer and I expect that he will agree with me on this. He is even more pessimistic than I am. This is bad news of course for Mr Swinney, Mr Moore and Mr Fraser:
"Dear Mr Mallett,
Brimmond School, Aberdeen - Mr Stephen Dick
I represent my client Mr Stephen Dick who advised the Scottish Government and various other Scottish public bodies in 2014 that a new school that they were about to start building, Brimmond School in Aberdeen, would inevitably fail due to water inundation, soil collapse and subsidence. The parties he contacted at the time allowed construction to continue and when Mr Dick came to see me, in April 2016, the school had been completed and he presented photographs which appeared to show that water inundation, soil collapse and subsidence were already occurring. I am not an engineer and I have no knowledge of this subject, but I attach below one of the photographs he presented to me at the time.
He explained that what we were witnessing was a "geotechnical failure" which ought to be investigated by an expert geotechnical engineer. Mr Dick's expectation was that this would be carried-out quickly and any recommendations provided by the engineer would be implemented as is the requirement of Design Standard EC7. He went-on to explain to me that "geotechnical failure" is followed by "structural failure" and because the structural failure would be "from the bottom" of the building, emanating from the bulb of soil underlying the foundations, then structural failure would be most likely be "sudden". For whatever reason, this expert check by a geotechnical engineer was never carried out either at the time, or at any time since then.
Mr Dick presented himself as a "whistle-blower" and so I am interested in whether he was right in 2014, or wrong. He has suffered prolonged unemployment for most of the past 8-years and so I am assisting him to achieve an outcome. I am aware that the building owner, Aberdeen City Council, have been monitoring settlement markers around the perimeter of the building for the past year or so although, as I say, Mr Dick is of the opinion that subsidence of the building is most likely to occur suddenly and without warning and so whether this precautionary measure will actually reduce the risk of collapse appears to be moot at this point.
Mr Dick has consulted with many worldwide expert geotechnical engineers via the American Society of Civil Engineers in the years since 2014 and you have no doubt seen their responses already. These responses do appear to me to be honest, measured and pragmatic and they are virtually all in close agreement with Mr Dick's prognosis. The evidence presented by your client on the project, Hub, on the other hand, are visual inspection reports by local structural engineers which, my client has explained, have no value and should not be relied upon to review and validate engineering design.
What does carry weight though is the continuing insistence that the project engineers for Brimmond School, BuroHappold, have checked the as-built design, which includes the continuous 5m deep, by 1m wide, by 30m long trench, back-filled with clay, along the west perimeter of the site, that was installed in the summer of 2014. As you are no doubt aware, Mr Dick is certain that this has re-set the ground conditions entirely, with respect to the confined artesian layers, thus making the original design unsafe. However, the clear impression given by your client's letters, that I have seen, indicates that BuroHappold have checked this trench and you are content that it will have no effect on the structural stability of the building. So, there is an obvious dichotomy that appears to have existed unexplained and unanswered for in excess of 6-years and this is one aspect of the case that ought to be adequately explained by a geotechnical expert to those who use this building every day.
Mr Dick has recently explained the analogy between what happened at Champlain Towers in Florida last year, to Brimmond School. At Champlain Towers it appears to have been soil sour caused by several decades of tidal flows that caused collapse to occur and it occurred without any warning. We do appear to have had some early warning at Brimmond School that collapse could occur and Mr Dick has said that the scour caused by artesian flows can be more damaging than that caused by tidal flows and that is something that you may want to provide comment on. Mr Dick has recently explained to me that what we are seeing at Brimmond School since it was opened in late 2015 is so unusual that he has never seen it before, or even heard about it happening elsewhere before, and he has worked at a senior level in engineering for many years.
There are two separate problems, or potential problems, that are related in as much as solving one solves the other. The first problem is the safety of the school and its viability going forward from here; is the flooding each winter likely to have an effect on the stability of the structure and that can be in the sort-term, or the longer term? The second problem is achieving some sort of closure for Mr Dick, which is long overdue.
I attach the 3No letters from the Scottish Government which I referred to earlier and could I ask for your response to the statements attributed to your Company? We are now heading into another season of wet winter-time weather which Mr Dick warns is the time of maximum risk for the school and so can I ask you to either agree with the statements attributed to your Company, or disagree with them? The point that he, and I, are trying to crystallize is whether or not a "latent defect" has been inadvertently built into this building design. Mr Dick has consistently stated that this is a result of an unrecorded construction mistake made by the contractor, but it is something that would appear to require your expert geotechnical input at this most crucial time of year in order to establish if it is a problem or not, or, alternatively, has Mr Dick exaggerated the problem? It does appear as though the building owner, Aberdeen City Council, is largely unaware of this defect and the effect it may have and so your input in clarifying this for us, once and for all, would be most helpful.
I understand that you are bound under Contract to your client and I am not suggesting in any way whatsoever that you break the terms of that Contract. However, we all have a duty to ensure that the Employees at the school are correctly informed of any risk and so I will leave it with you if I may to respond."
Gary,
Friday is the Sabbath in the Middle East and so Muhammad will do nothing today, but he will start working on this on Sunday morning. He is a busy guy and he will not hang around and wait for John Swinney. So, this should be resolved by Mr Swinney today.
He may for example say that Ogilvie Construction and Harper MacLeod have colluded and so this is their fault and they should pay. That would be acceptable to me but let me know please.
By the way, I read that a few tribal leaders in Tabuk were threatening to stop the Neom project by refusing to sell their land. They were sentenced to public beheading in Riyadh's Deera Square a few weeks ago. Hence, this is not an easy assignment but it strikes me that Scotland is in a real political and judicial mess just now - you're better off in KSA any day of the week.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
----- Forwarded message -----
From: Stephen Dick
To: Muhammad.A.Khan@parsons.com
Sent: Friday, 14 October 2022 at 10:16:33 BST
Subject: Re: Career Opportunity in Parsons International KSA – NEOM Oxagon
Dear Mohammad,
Thanks for that and I am interested.
I was offered a job previously with Parsons in KSA but I had left KSA with an entry/re-exit visa instead of a final exit visa and for that reason I was blocked from re-entering the country. That block should now have expired, but that would be worth checking.
I attach my CV which may be useful to you.
Also, the answers to your questions are as follows:
• Interested to work in Saudi Arabia ( Single Status - Site based assignment in Duba City, Tabuk): Yes
• Have you recently interviewed with Parsons: Yes
• Do you already know anyone in Parsons: Douglas Bailey and Shane Hunt
• Highest Degree ( Full time in College/ University): BSc Civil Engineering
• Current location: Scotland
• Current Salary: Last monthly salary in KSA 50,000SAR
• Expected Salary package: Last offer from SAP was 55,000SAR
• Notice Period and Availability in case of selection: Immediate
• Covid Vaccine Status and type: Full vaccination and booster
• Which Passport do you use for travel: UK
• Reason for looking new opportunity: I prefer KSA
• Iqama Status and Profession ( Transferable ): Expired
• Are you registered time Saudi Engineering Council (Under which Profession): Yes, as a Civil Engineer
Do let me know if there is anything else you need.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
On Thursday, 13 October 2022 at 18:34:39 BST, Muhammad.A.Khan@parsons.com wrote:
Hello Steve,
Hope you are keeping well.
Dear All,
I understand the school is closed again for the October holiday and is due to reopen at the end of the month. So, now is an opportune time to review where we all stand. I am still waiting on the Deputy First Minister making an executive decision and that's where my personal situation stands at the moment but I had a meeting with Mr McAteer on Thursday and the following points were raised. Much of it you are aware of, but constant repetition of the same information has sadly become the new normal, hasn't it:
1. The only opinions which have contractual weight at this point are my own opinion and BuroHappold's opinion. We can now forget about all other opinions.
2. My training and qualifications have been extensively checked by overseas Governments in the past and I have always been deemed competent to carry-out these duties and I have done so many times. The reservations, initially expressed by the Scottish Government and repeated by Hub and Aberdeen City Council, that I was not adequately trained and qualified have therefore been answered. I presume that no-one is questioning Hugh Mallett's training and qualifications?
3. As far as: "Everyone that needs to know about this does know and no-one agrees with you", is concerned - It appears vanishingly unlikely at this stage that a 'silver-bullet' exists that will usurp my opinion and BuroHappold's opinion but if one does exist, then I am asking for it to be issued now.
4. BuroHappold's opinion cannot be redacted and that may be why its release, to the EIS, has been blocked. It is currently held by Aberdeen City Council, and by Hub.
5. Aberdeen City Council are responsible for the day-to-day safety of the school and that is their statutory duty, but a hidden 'latent defect' which has been built into the building by the Hub Consortium and is known about and understood only by them, is Hub's responsibility to identify and to correct. Surely, I shouldn't have to keep repeating this all the time?
6. Responsibility for the day-to-day safety of those attending the school lies with Aberdeen City Council and the EIS.
7. The only law required to ensure the release of BuroHappold's opinion is the Health and Safety at Work Act. But any request should be made by the EIS and not by myself. Similarly, any approach to the Health and Safety Executive should be made by the Council and not by myself.
8. My responsibility as a whistleblower is to make an initial 'Protected Public Interest Disclosure' and then I step back and allow others to carry-out the investigations. Sadly, this has been covered-up, initially by the Contractor and Harper MacLeod, and I have had to remain involved for far longer than should have been necessary.
9. I have been delayed because the Scottish Government has not investigated properly and responsibility for that lies with them and not with me.
10. It is crucial that all of you appraise yourself of how whistleblowing works. I have responsibilities, but all of you have responsibilities too. Specifically, no-one is expecting you to investigate this personally, but you are expected to ensure that a proper investigation is carried out. Has the Institution of Civil Engineers, for example, done that? If they haven't, that may explain why the rest of you haven't done it either, but it may not excuse it. I attach an explanation of the way whistleblowing works and, ironically, it is by the Institution of Structural Engineers. I have followed this advice and no-one else has. I am therefore now asking everyone to take a good look at this, please.
11. My role should last no longer than 8-weeks and my situation with respect to legal advice should be 'protected' during that time and so something has gone wrong here.
12. Ordinarily, these cases, when handled by overseas Governments, are managed by a single Minister, a senior civil-servant and a team of expert engineers. This is accepted as being the honest, professionally competent and indeed the lawful way to conduct such an investigation and regular communication takes place every day and is recorded on a 'communications timeline'. Nothing is redacted, concealed or ignored. Overseas Governments know what they are doing and these situations progress to a conclusion relentlessly. These cases are not unique, once in a lifetime, events and they happen all of the time. Just accept that please.
13. My intention is to now leave this with the EIS. It is clear that it is now a mess and that no-one wants to lead it from here, but the EIS would appear to me to have the legal duty to ask questions and demand answers. Bob Matheson has offered the EIS his assistance in the past and they haven't responded. However, I presume that his offer remains open.
14. There was a discussion on Thursday about what would happen if teachers and pupils became trapped inside a collapsing building. The point of highlighting the Hyatt Regency Collapse and the Champlain Towers Collapse was to explain that people are usually killed inside a collapsing building and it usually happens suddenly. Aberdeen City Council's settlement monitors will therefore be no use to you in that scenario.
15. The quickest and most pragmatic solution from here may be to apportion blame to the Contractor, Ogilvie Construction and Hub's lawyer, Harper MacLeod. It has been clear to me for some time that these two companies have collaborated to ensure that this disclosure, which was correctly made, remained hidden and was not investigated properly and the public have lost-out as a result of that. Specifically, the opportunity to have the school rectified by Insurers has been lost as a result of their collaboration. It is not only myself that has been affected by this, but it is all of us have been affected (obviously) and I think a clear message should be sent-out that if companies are paid public money, then there is an expectation that they work in the public interest.
16. The only parties that have refused to accept correspondence from me over the years have been Ogilvie Construction and Harper MacLeod and that would tend to put both of these companies in a very much weaker position when I am finally proven to have been correct.
16. I explained to Mr McAteer that the different trajectories of my career and Gayle Gorman's career since this was first reported in 2014 illustrate the harm that is currently being done to entirely innocent individuals by this Holyrood administration. Gayle Gorman appears to have done nothing to investigate this and has been promoted as a result. I have worked to solve the problem for all of you and my career is virtually at an end because of doing that and, if this outcome has become embarrassing for me then God knows what it must be like for the rest of you.
17. As I explained last week, the shortest route to resolving this is to report it to Police Scotland. Two things will then happen: 1. All of the pages of text that I have produced over the years, and there are probably more than a thousand by now, will be opened-up to proper investigation by experts. 2. BuroHappold opinions will be released to the EIS, instantly. As you know, this initiative will need to be initiated by the EIS and I cannot do it for you.
The meeting I had on Thursday with Mr McAteer should not have been necessary and it is for each one of you to resolve this from here. As I state above, my legal and ethical duty was to make a Protected Public Interest Disclosure and I did that in 2014.
We are at the stage now where we all want to know who pays? Who pays for my losses over the years and who pays to fix the school, if indeed it can be fixed. Can I suggest that Ogilvie Construction who were responsible for making the initial mistake and Harper MacLeod, who were instructed to get it checked but didn't get it checked and instead covered it up, are held responsible? Sometimes we can all look for complexity, when complexity doesn't really exist and the way I look at this is that both were paid to deliver a service to the public and they failed to do that due to shortcomings in the ethical direction set by the leadership of both companies. There are others involved too, but the course was set by Ogilvie Construction and Harper MacLeod and once that is done it is practically impossible to row back from it and either they pay, or the public ends up paying and that appears to be the choice that you all have to make just now.
I think that that a much better appreciation of the value of whistleblowing is required from all of you at this point. It looks inevitable that I am going to be proven correct and possibly tens of millions of pounds stand at risk of being lost just because no-one will listen. As you know, I think it is absolutely extraordinary and the problem is, the public may think the same.
Dear Jackie and Gary,
1. Can I ask that this Email is sent to Donald MacDonald of Ogilvie Construction and to Lorne Crerar of Harper MacLeod.
2. As explained yesterday, I will need a decision from the Deputy First Minister in order that I can return to employment and so can you both pursue that for me please?
Thank you,
S. Dick
1. Can you send the Hugh Mallett letter tomorrow, Gary?
Make your point in your own words of course, but the draft letter trailing sets-out the engineering. This is not some vague concept of what may go wrong, it is very specific. Hugh Mallett has had plenty of time to think about it and if any of it was wrong then we would know by now. Hugh Mallett will know that I have written it and not you, but that is normal and it is far preferable to him than you taking a flyer at this on your own. So, my suggestion is that you cut and paste as you wish but do it today please so that it can be sent tomorrow.
2. UAE are 3-hours ahead of us and Muhammad works on a Sunday and so he will have reviewed my application already. I hope to be leaving Scotland by the end of the month and, to do that, I want to be paid first and I will not be leaving until I am paid. That should come either from Ogilvie Construction, Harper MacLeod or the Scottish Government. It is not complex then and you may select any permutation and I really don't care as I consider them all equally delinquent. I want a separate payment for each of those who have assisted me so far and so please remember that.
Perhaps Jackie will assist as this is much more a Holyrood foul-up than it is a legal and construction foul-up and so some team-work may be required. Also, Bob is on secondment and so he is not available at his office but he asked me to keep him copied-in to everything and so he is reading this. If either yourself or Jackie can speak to Bob, then he may be able to suggest a solution. His suggestion ought to be treated with some respect since he has been right all along, hasn't he? My guess is that he has been told somewhere along the line: "We in Scotland have our own legal system...it is better than yours...we chart our own course...leave us alone." The usual Holyrood crap. It turns out to be an empty box and there is nothing there any longer; there used to be, but it's all gone now.
Let me know if another meeting is required? I think it is.
Dear Stephen
I will hold off on sending anything to Hugh Mallett as you have asked Gary McAteer to do so in order to avoid confusion.
I am of course happy to assist in anyway that Mr McAteer finds useful.
Best wishes
Jackie
Has the letter been sent, Gary?
If you consider this in the context of the Grenfell Inquiry, you are sending the principal designer a photograph (among other things) and you are asking: Is this actually safe? Could this building collapse? As I understand it, BuroHappold must respond.
Can you arrange another meeting for this Thursday/Friday, please? I want to be finished/settled to an outcome this week and be working again as soon as possible after that.
Dear All,
I attach an extract from the Cole Inquiry of 2017 which may be helpful to you just now.
That Inquiry investigated the closure of 17No Edinburgh Schools for a period of several months in 2016. The schools were designed correctly but they weren't built correctly and a partial collapse occurred at one school in 2016 and there was a partial collapse at another school in 2014 which resulted in a pupil being tragically killed. So, it does happen.
The Consortium that built these schools wasn't Hub, it was Edinburgh Schools Partnership (ESP) and just as ESP were assuring everyone that the Edinburgh Schools were safe based upon visual inspection reports, Hub has been assuring everyone that Brimmond School is safe based upon visual inspection reports. Whether it is safe is not for me to decide, but the school re-opens on 28th October and so you have ten-days to determine that for yourselves. I do not consider that it is safe to re-open, but it depends upon BuroHappold and they may decide differently.
Edinburgh City Council had six-days, from 5th April 2016 to 11th April 2016, to determine the safety, or otherwise, of their schools and they did that by issuing letters, convening meetings and reviewing engineering calculations and expert opinions. It's a really intensive process that takes time but that's the way it is done and it is explained from 5.7.7 to 5.8.5. I assume the same process is going-on just now with BuroHappold?
I am still waiting on a decision from the Deputy First Minister on my future, or can this matter be dealt with by someone who will just commit to getting it done on time? I should not be kept waiting needlessly, month after month and year after year like this; it is incredibly frustrating and I'm sure that you all must realize that.
I have requested another meeting with Mr McAteer later this week and I expect that to be the closing meeting for me. If I have been correct about this, and I think I have been, then the school is not safe to re-open after the holiday. That will no doubt come as a shock to some of you but if you have ever been involved in a fatal accident then you will realize that preventing accidents is the priority and it is failing to prevent them, when you have all the information at hand which would allow you to do that, that would be shocking. You now have the requisite information to allow you to come to your determination and have just over a week to get it done.
So, let me be very clear with all of you: the purpose of this Email is to inform you that I consider it would be unsafe to open Brimmond school again after the October break. The Edinburgh schools were relatively simple to fix but Brimmond school is not. How do you improve the bearing capacity of the soil under a building's foundations after it has been allowed to deteriorate for so long? Perhaps you cannot but, as I set-out above, that decision is for all of you to make.
Dear Gary,
Can you send this on to Lorne Crerar of Harper MacLeod and Donald MacDonald of Ogilvie Construction as before and arrange a closing meeting in your office please.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear All,
I notice the Email that I sent this morning has disappeared from my file of 'sent' items. It is not the first time this has happened and it indicates to me that the Scottish Government has a considerable resource at its disposal. What I am trying to do is get some of that resource dedicated to:
1. Establishing the stability of the 'as-built' design of Brimmond School with project engineers, BuroHappold.
2. Assisting Mr McAteer and Ms Baillie in achieving a fair settlement for me and a return to work.
I attach the Email again trailing and it is self-explanatory. The point I was making was that when Edinburgh City Council conducted a very similar investigation in 2016, it involved a large amount of engineering work compressed into a period of a few days and honesty, accountability and communication was obvious throughout. Sadly, I do not notice any of that here and that is why this investigation has turned into such a mess.
Can I suggest that all of you just stand back and leave this to BuroHappold as only they have the authority to agree with me or disagree with me. Once that is done, then we all know where we stand.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear All,
If you studied the Edinburgh City Council timeline, which was sent to you yesterday, then you will understand that the entire engineering investigation had to be compressed into a 6-day period from 5th April to 11th April 2016, when the schools were declared as unsafe. We should now be working at full-speed, so that situation does not happen again at Brimmond.
I explained to Mr McAteer last week that the BuroHappold reports exist and I have read the first report, which was issued on or around July 2014. I took the report very seriously indeed and tried to implement it. Ogilvie Construction, Harper MacLeod, Aberdeen City Council and Hub took the opposite view and ignored it and that is why I was sacked from my job and I have explained the chronology of these events to all of you.
As I understand it, these reports cannot be with-held or redacted as they are essentially safety reports that go from the expert that produced them, via Hub and Aberdeen City Council, to the teachers. Can I ask that you agree with that position so that we all quickly get ourselves into a position where this information is distributed to those who use this building every day.
Dear Mr Mallett,
You have been fully aware of this case since 2014 and I believe that my concerns regarding the safety of the building are shared equally by BuroHappold. Jackie Baillie MSP contacted you back in April because she wanted some reassurance that the school was safe to use and your response failed to move the process forward. Is it safe to use? No-one appears to know and that position has persisted, remarkably, for more than 8-years now. If we have reached a point where engineers are reluctant to communicate and to confirm that a building which they have designed is safe to use or not, then we are all in for problems - wouldn't you agree? I have read some of your opinions but not all of them and I am asking that they are distributed to those that need to see them and your cooperation in ensuring that happens today, if possible, would be enormously helpful.
Dear Mr McAteer,
Can you send this on to Donald MacDonald of Ogilvie Construction and Lorne Crerar of Harper MacLeod, please.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
I got a response 5-minutes ago from Ali in UAE and he has accepted the information I sent him earlier this afternoon. So, that looks OK so far.
All that I am asking you to do is make sure that I am paid before I leave. It is not only myself that I want paid, it is Bob Matheson, George Laird and Stuart Campbell too. The way I look at it is that everyone that has contributed should be paid. The Scottish Government do not understand and they will only refuse to respond.
They will definitely refuse to pay George Laird and Stuart Campbell and I imagine they will be reluctant to pay even Bob Matheson's organization, but I am insisting and Beltrami have a heritage of achieving settlements for far more unpleasant members of the public than I am presenting to you here. Would that be a fair observation to make to you?
If I leave without being paid then you will say: "But you accepted....not this old chestnut again" and all the rest of it and so it must be done and I am insisting and, once you do that, we are finished.
Let me know when the next meeting will be? It needs to be sorted-out at a meeting as that is the only time anything gets done.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Gary, Jackie and Bob,
This is what I finalized with Ali from Parsons earlier. He wanted the past 4-years in Scotland summarized in a paragraph and so I have done that. As you can see, there are no surprises and you have seen all of this before, many times. The problem in Scotland is that no matter how many times I repeat this, or to whom I repeat it, no-one listens. It seems to be a country nowadays in permanent stasis, paralysed by the fear and the instinct for self-preservation of Holyrood Ministers. Tomorrow, Parsons will present this to a few Saudi civil-servants and that will be that. They may have a few questions for me but, frankly, I expect them just to accept what is written. I do not see anything remarkable about it and nor will they.
I have been extremely fair to the Institution of Civil Engineers and to the Scottish Government although God knows why as they have both done nothing for me over the years.
I contacted Gary earlier and asked him to pursue getting me paid before I leave (I am assuming here that I will be leaving and I certainly hope that is the case as I only start to feel truly relaxed these days when I reach Heathrow Airport). Liability for paying me would appear to me to lie between 1. Ogilvie Construction, 2. Harper MacLeod and 3. the Scottish Government and whatever they end up paying me, I can tell you it will cost many times more than that to fix the school. Take a look below - what is described there isn't cheap.
As I say, I have left Gary with that and so we can leave that up to him. Any permutation will be acceptable to me: 1 from 3, 2 from 3, or all 3 from 3 and I am just appraising all of you of the latest situation.
The meeting with Gary McAteer last week was certainly helpful in crystallizing the best strategy. One more meeting is all that will be required and I have asked him to make that as soon as he can as I think everyone is absolutely sick and tired of this now.
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Project Name and Location- Brimmond School, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
Consultant - BuroHappold, London Office
Main contractor - Ogilvie Construction
Position - Project Manager
A new school was built on a sloping site in Aberdeen, Scotland. It was in an area of relatively high rainfall. The site contained many confined artesian layers at depths of up to 5m. The building was designed to be supported by shallow pad foundations, instead of deep foundations, so that the artesian layers would not be disturbed. The contractor mistakenly cut through and blocked these artesian layers during construction and that is causing the site to flood with upwelling groundwater each winter and there are grave concerns that the processes of liquefaction, soil collapse and subsidence are threatening the stability of the building itself. There is always the possibility that a new artesian equilibrium will establish naturally over time, but the soils have proven to be too impermeable and that hasn't happened. The problems are continuing and so major works are now required to stabilize the zone of soil underlying the building and cut-off the upwelling ground-water. I identified the problem and have worked in conjunction with project engineers BuroHappold and geotechnical experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) to agree a solution. Any failure would be a failure from the bottom and that may occur without warning (Champlain Towers, for example) and that has caused great anxiety among those who use the building every day. The solution may involve installing deep French drains and wells, water attenuation tanks, filtration and pumped discharge of excess groundwater and geo-polymer grout injected to stabilize the pressure bulbs under the compromised foundations. The project was initially funded by the Scottish Government and so they have led the way in getting it investigated and an agreed solution put in place. All European and ASCE geotechnical Design Standards have been considered over the past 4-years along with more than 40No opinions from international geotechnical experts in reaching a conclusion.
Dear All,
I was asked to summarize the work I have done over the course of the past 4-years yesterday and the following was my response:
"A new school was built on a sloping site in Aberdeen, Scotland. It was in an area of relatively high rainfall. The site contained many confined artesian layers at depths of up to 5m. The building was designed to be supported by shallow pad foundations, instead of deep foundations, so that the artesian layers would not be disturbed. The contractor mistakenly cut through and blocked these artesian layers during construction and that is causing the site to flood with upwelling groundwater each winter and there are grave concerns that the processes of liquefaction, soil collapse and subsidence are threatening the stability of the building itself. There is always the possibility that a new artesian equilibrium will establish naturally over time, but the soils have proven to be too impermeable and that hasn't happened. The problems are continuing and so major works are now required to stabilize the zone of soil underlying the building and cut-off the upwelling ground-water. I identified the problem and have worked in conjunction with project engineers BuroHappold and geotechnical experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) to agree a solution. Any failure would be a failure from the bottom and that may occur without warning (Champlain Towers, for example) and that has caused great anxiety among those who use the building every day. The solution may involve installing deep French drains and wells, water attenuation tanks, filtration and pumped discharge of excess groundwater and geo-polymer grout injected to stabilize the pressure bulbs under the compromised foundations. The project was initially funded by the Scottish Government and so they have led the way in getting it investigated and an agreed solution put in place. European and ASCE geotechnical Design Standards have been considered over the past 4-years along with more than 40No opinions from international geotechnical experts in reaching a conclusion."
I am now at the point of leaving this investigation for the rest of you to conclude from here. Rather than having to review the thousand or so pages of text that I have submitted over the course of the past 8-years, the design problem is explained for all of you here, in a single paragraph.
What I describe above as a possible solution is the result of my investigations which were carried-out with ASCE members. As alluded to before, the only engineers with authority to advise you whether this may be enough, whether it is too much or too little, or whether a solution is even possible at this stage, is BuroHappold.
Can Gary McAteer forward this on to Donald MacDonald of Ogilvie and Lorne Crerar of Harper MacLeod please?
Thank you,
S. Dick
It's taken a while hasn't it. Jenny Laing has been the problem all along. 8-years of my life wasted on her.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/rob-polkinghorne-4b283a28
View Rob Polkinghorne’s profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Rob has 9 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on …
Works For: Aberdeen City Council
500+ connections
Title: Chief Operating Officer at …
Location: Greater Aberdeen Area
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Ogilvie Construction Ltd | LinkedIn
linkedin.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow (@brucecaldow) | Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
Jenny Laing - Leader of Aberdeen City Council - Aberdeen Cit…
uk.linkedin.com
I believe that Robert Rennie wrote the book on Scottish solicitors' negligence.
https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/our-people/adam-de-ste-croix
16/11/2021 · Adam is a commercial litigator with experience and expertise in shareholder & director disputes, professional negligence, commercial contracts (including breach of …
Facebook (20)
The Ca'd'oro, 45 Gordon Street, Glasgow G1 3… · 0141 221 8888
DIRECTIONS
WEBSITE
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
youtube.com
Global web icon
Harper Macleod LLP | Solicitors
solicitors.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
Martin Darroch - Chief Executive - Harper Macleod LLP | Linke…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Amy Walsh - Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Dear Jackie,
The undernoted Email was deleted from my record of sent items this morning. This is happening more and more often and so can I ask who is authorizing this?
Dear Cheryl,
The action is with the EIS to request, from Hub, BuroHappold's design review. If you do not ask, they will not give it to you but, if you do ask, they must give it to you.
Dear Gary,
Can Natalie arrange a closing meeting, in your office, for later this week please?
Thank you,
S. Dick
Dear Cheryl,
I am aware that the school is due to re-open in a few days time and the point of referring everyone to the Cole Inquiry of 2017 is because it explains that, during the 5-day period prior to the Edinburgh schools re-opening after the Easter holiday, many in the public sector were communicating 24/7 and so my point to all of you is that there may be a public expectation that all of you will engage and communicate your knowledge of the case with each other during this most crucial period.
If you are still waiting on BuroHappold's design review, can I suggest the EIS use the attached opinions of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) members as a benchmark explanation of the problem and a suggested design solution? How many times have I sent this attachment to you over the years? - my guess is between fifteen and twenty times? Hub have been unable to come anywhere close to matching this quality of opinion in the years since 2016 - they don't even have one opinion from a geotechnical expert and I have given you more than forty!
So, can someone tell Hub that time is now up and they either issue BuroHappold's design review tomorrow morning, or the opinions of the ASCE geotechnical engineers will stand as the authoritative opinion? The ASCE members do not express a view on whether the school is safe or not, because that is not the question that was asked of them, and so that decision is for yourselves and Aberdeen City Council, but it will presumably have to be made very quickly now?
My understanding is that the design review by BuroHappold has been effectively covered-up by Hub since it was first issued to them and Aberdeen City Council in March 2018 and that is a situation that I have not personally come across anywhere before in world engineering. Fortunately, the ASCE opinions were issued a few months earlier in November 2017, and they have been issued to all of you and so my suggestion is that we use them instead. This is the most crucial period just now and there is no time to wait.
This will provide an outcome at last that allows you to agree the safety, or otherwise, of the building, with the Council, before it opens again on Friday. It has taken a great many needless repetitions of the obvious for us all to reach this point, hasn't it.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
I would like to have all aspects of this case settled by Friday please. Schools in Aberdeen re-open on Friday and so that is obviously the closing date for everyone. I know that they like to blame one single person in cases like these and I note that Jenny Laing of Aberdeen City Council is back in the picture (at last). That would explain an awful lot that has gone-on over the years.
What I am looking for is set-out below and so make it Friday, please?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Finally - the moral of this sad case should be: "Leave engineering to the engineers".
Dear Cheryl,
If BuroHappold's design review still hasn't been issued to you, then we have perhaps run out of time? That means that the opinions of expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which I distributed again yesterday, are the only opinions by geotechnical engineers that have been released and the question at this stage is whether these are genuine, or not.
It may assist you to know that these were submitted to the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) on 10th June 2021 and they were reviewed by a number of Fellows of that Institution, over a period of four months up until September 2021 and so we can all accept that a line-by-line review of this information, by up to 10No Fellows of the Institution of Civil Engineers, has taken place.
The only question for the ICE is whether they accept the ASCE opinions, or not? That is not the same as asking whether they agree with them. What you would be asking the ICE to confirm is that they accept that these opinions are those of expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the question is no more complex than that.
When that question is answered, the weight of evidence in my favour could be overwhelming? I am keeping both the Institution of Civil Engineers and BuroHappold copied-in to all correspondence so that if I have been exaggerating what is a minor problem, or if I am wrong then they can intervene, but that appears unlikely as it stands just now.
So, we are at the end now and I have presented you with the ASCE opinions and Hub has presented you with visual inspection reports by structural engineers (attached). Both could hardly be more different and it is now up to you, with the guidance of the ICE, to determine which is correct and that should not be difficult.
Thank you,
S. Dick
Gary,
The job at Saudi Arabian Parsons was good and I would have accepted that. Two things might have happened:
1. I'm considered as too old.
2. I haven't been accepted by the client and they prefer someone else.
I assume that everyone is wanting to get this settled now? I have been trying to get it settled for years and so that is the type of job that I would accept.
So, the job plus the settlement plus the payment for third parties and I will consider this as being over. That's fair, isn't it?
Kind Regards,
S. Dick
Post a Comment