Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA who denied me a fair hearing of my complaints against Glasgow University staff stops by feelings of guilt?













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:

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

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

459 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 459 of 459
Anonymous said...

Here's the problem, George......

The Labour Party will really need to drop this tendency they have to protect each other rather than protect the public. It's always been a problem for them, especially here in Scotland.

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
Global web icon
Ethics Case Study - Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse
prezi.com
Global web icon
Kevin Stewart SNP (@KevinStewartSNP) / Twitter
twitter.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
Jenny Laing - Leader of Aberdeen City Council - Aberdeen Cit…
uk.linkedin.com

Anonymous said...

Dear Cheryl,

I understand that the school is due to re-open tomorrow. The situation is set-out in the trailing Emails and I presume that you have now been adequately reassured as to the safety of the building.

Dear Gary,

My responsibility was to warn everyone that this building needed to be checked immediately and the rest of you should have taken-over from me at that point. When that doesn't happen, and I end-up having to do everything myself, it results in a needless attrition of my life and that is what has happened since 2014. I would like to discuss and finalize that with you tomorrow, please and I am looking for a final outcome, tomorrow.

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Wilson and Mr Spence,

I received a reply from Rob Polkinghorne advising that he is no longer with the Council. His reply was in response to the trailing Email that I will let you read for yourselves as it is self-explanatory.

For reason for sending this information to both of you is because the action is with the Council and with the EIS just now and, with the school due to open again tomorrow, the matter requires the Council's immediate attention.

The only information that the EIS require is the design review which was carried-out in March 2018 by BuroHappold and is held by the Council's Head of Education, Charlie Penman and Hub's Angeline Robertson.

My understanding of the Council and Hub's joint position is that you are 'assessing the risk of structural failure' by monitoring settlement markers around the perimeter of the building. The Design Standard is very clear in its recommendations on what you do when failure of the ground threatens to bring about failure of the structure and monitoring settlement markers is definitely not recommended.

I presume that BuroHappold's design review has now been handed-over to the EIS? If it has not been handed-over, can you arrange to do that now please.

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Mallett,

In the event of an accident at the school, the course of the Inquiry may be difficult to predict of course but I have previously mentioned the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981 to you. That is one of the best-known precedent cases in world engineering and the similarities with Brimmond School are obvious.

That disaster was caused by a refusal to communicate and Brimmond School provides an even clearer example of the same problem.

The design engineers, Jack Gillum and Dan Duncan, were held responsible for that collapse because they had told everyone that they had checked the design and it was safe, when they hadn't done that. The design actually contained an error that would have been found easily, if only they had checked.

On that basis, it is possible that you may be found responsible for any collapse at Brimmond School because the error has been pointed-out to you, not only by myself but also by a large number of your peers in geotechnical engineering. It wasn't pointed-out last week or last month, it was pointed-out in 2017 and the public perception of that is likely to be entirely negative.

So, my advice to you is that you start communicating by making it very, very clear to all those listed above: Is this building safe, or is it not safe?

Dear Mr McAteer,

I have not heard anything from you either and I was expecting to meet you later today. These constant delays are unacceptable. Can you explain what the hold-up is please?

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

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
Kirsty Kirke - Framework Manager - Morrison Construction - Li…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Hugh Mallett - Buro Happold
burohappold.com
Global web icon
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
youtube.com
Global web icon
Gary McAteer - Director - Beltrami & Company Ltd, Solicitors .…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow (@brucecaldow) | Twitter
twitter.com

Anonymous said...

Captain Mallet has engaged......

Aberdeen schools reopen tomorrow and so time is sadly up for all.

https://twitter.com/kevinstewartsnp
28/10/2012 · Kevin Stewart SNP @KevinStewartSNP SNP MSP for Aberdeen Central & @scotgov Minister for Mental Wellbeing & Social Care Aberdeen, Scotland Born June 3 Joined October …

Born: June 3
Followers: 15K
Joined Date: October 2012
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Rob Polkinghorne - Chief Executive Officer - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
Jackie Baillie (@jackiebmsp) / Twitter
twitter.com
Global web icon
BBC Radio Scotland - Sportsound
bbc.co.uk
Global web icon
Stephen Hugh Mallett - Technical Director - Buro Happold - Li…
uk.linkedin.com

Anonymous said...

I just wonder what the fuck Jenny Laing understands about the Designers' Guide to EN7? The good news is that the pressure is relentless now. It was always a case of me being proven right or wrong and there is really no more to it than that.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jenny-laing-ab778671
Jenny Laing Leader Aberdeen City Council Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom 246 followers 235 connections Join to connect Aberdeen City Council …

Occupation: Leader Aberdeen City Council
Title: Leader Aberdeen City Council
Works For: Aberdeen City Council
Connections: 235
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Councillor details - Councillor Jenny Laing
committees.aberdeencit…
Global web icon
SURVEYING DIRECTOR - OGILVIE CONSTRUCTION - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Jonathan Moore - Head of Outcome Agreement Unit - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse: Ethics Case Study No. 4
youtube.com
Global web icon
Designers' Guide to EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Desi…
icevirtuallibrary.com

Anonymous said...

You don't get any better than this George. I've worked with many Americans over the years and they would call this a slam-dunk (whatever that means).

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: 108KPosts: 13KJoined Date: January 2011
EXPLORE FURTHER
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
Wings Over Scotland| The world's most-read Scottish politics …
wingsoverscotland.com
Global web icon
Ogilvie Construction Ltd | LinkedIn
linkedin.com
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow - Partner - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com

Anonymous said...

Gary,

I would like this sorted-out by the end of this week please.

The two people with authority under the Contract and by training and Degree are myself and Hugh Mallett. So, if Hugh Mallett's opinion agrees with mine, then that's the story ended.

The others who are qualified by training and Degree are the client team of Jonathan Moore, Stephen Garvin and Fraser Innes. I would not expect then to accept something that we, the Design and Build team, have recommended they shouldn't accept but you never know.

All of the other people who have provided advice over the years are sadly not trained and not qualified. I presume that Hugh Mallett has pointed that out to you all by now.

I understand that Jenny Laing has re-engaged and that explains everything. It explains Jackie's unwillingness to help anyway and that, as you will appreciate, is what has been vexing me for the past few days.

Let me know tomorrow please and if I don't hear from you I will send an Email to the others asking why this is taking so long.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie,

I have asked Mr McAteer for a meeting on Friday to end my involvement in this case. As you know, my complaint is against the Scottish Government and Mr McAteer has never made any progress with them in the past and so perhaps you can offer your assistance over the course of the next two days? As you will appreciate, I am not being paid and yet I have resolved this, almost single-handedly, for all of you. There are several aspects of this case which have made it unique in terms of world engineering and this has sadly been one of them and so I would appreciate your leadership in getting it resolved for me.

Dear Mr Mallett,

I have made the point that the only authoritative opinion on the safety of the as-built design is your own and I fail to understand why we are all being kept waiting. I provided my opinion in 2014 and many reputable experts provided their opinions in 2017 and the building would appear, unless you disagree, to be non-compliant and therefore unsafe. My experience has been that if the teachers at the school ask for your opinion, then it must be provided and so kindly ensure that this is done please.

Dear Cheryl,

Can I suggest that your Union takes a more active role in resolving this now? The Union UNISON led the way in ensuring Edinburgh Sick Kids Hospital was rectified a couple of years ago and they did that by refusing to allow their members to work at the Hospital until it was rectified. It is not difficult for a Union to pursue this and the law is firmly on your side.

Dear ICE,

I asked you to withdraw the Visual Inspection Reports by your members Ramsay and Chalmers, Fairhurst and Cundal as they have been misleading those who have been relying upon them and they have prolongated this case by several years. May we all assume that these have now been withdrawn and that the only opinion that we are currently waiting for is by BuroHappold?

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

You are persisting to the end and so well-done for that. It is called indefatigability:

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: 108KPosts: 13KJoined Date: January 2011
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Bruce Caldow - 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
Rona Cargill - HR Director - Harper Macleod LLP | LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Ogilvie Construction Ltd | LinkedIn
linkedin.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr McAteer,

Give the Deputy First Minister and Harper MacLeod the opportunity to respond and if they fail to do that, then tomorrow's meeting should go ahead regardless. Both have been refusing to communicate with us since 2017 and that should not de-rail a whistle-blowing case and so we should finish to an outcome tomorrow, please.

Dear Mr Mallett,

The recent analogy which I made between Brimmond School and the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981 makes the potential for a collapse at the school and your personal responsibilities in the event of a collapse, very clear.

I have led this investigation and it has taken many years and produced over a thousand pages of text. It is now for you to comply with the Contract and to provide your expert advice to all of the parties that are involved and that includes, of course, the teachers at the school.

Perhaps some appreciation ought to be shown to myself and colleagues at the American Society of Civil Engineers at this point for solving this case for you? If we hadn't done that, then a sudden structural failure would inevitably have occurred and I do not anticipate that anyone is going argue with that.

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Jonathan Moore is very much John Swinney's bag-carrier in the civil-service.

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. ... The Scottish Government. The University of …

Works For: The Scottish Government
Title: Head of Outcome Agreement …
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
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
Wings Over Scotland| The world's most-read Scottish politics …
wingsoverscotland.com
Global web icon
SURVEYING DIRECTOR - OGILVIE CONSTRUCTION - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr McAteer,

I am still waiting on a time for tomorrow's meeting. Ask Natalie to advise me on that please?

For all of the others who are copied-in, I explained two or three weeks ago the sequence of events which brought about the closure of 17No Edinburgh schools in 2016. A very fast determination of the safety of these buildings took place, over 6-days, and no-one waited for the Deputy First Minister, or for Harper MacLeod. So, if you are waiting on them, then you shouldn't be.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear All,

While I wait on Mr McAteer getting back to me, it would be worthwhile all of you reviewing the Hyatt Regency case: Hyatt Regency walkway collapse - Wikipedia. I must have explained this more than twenty times over the years.

In both the Hyatt and Brimmond cases, the available load-bearing capacity is approximately 30% of the mandated minimum and failure should be expected 'from the bottom', meaning that failure will be sudden.

The key data is from the Brimmond Soil Investigation Report (Executive Summary) and it states: "Presence of noted shallow and potentially upwelling groundwater reduces the allowable bearing capacity to <75kN/m2 and with this present they will not be suitable as a founding strata". Nevertheless, this is the founding strata and the design requires a bearing capacity of >150kN/m2.

The expert members of the American Society of Civil Engineers noticed the significance of this data and they noticed it instantly. So, when the site is flooded the design fails and that will manifest, sooner or later, in a structural failure or collapse. In the Hyatt case, they only found-out about the design error after the collapse had occurred, but you are all aware of the design error at Brimmond already, aren't you.

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear All,

I still haven't heard anything from Mr McAteer and so I presume that we are still waiting on the Deputy First Minister and Harper MacLeod?

Again, I have submitted the attachment more than twenty times over the years, but it would be worth all of you reviewing it again. This is the way whistle-blowing works in Saudi Arabia.

'His Excellency Director of Public Safety' is the Saudi equivalent of our Deputy First Minister and he is personally responsible for investigating any reported risk to public safety.

You can tell by the number of hand-written notes and signatures on the letters that a great deal of communication went-on between police and government departments. I was asked to lead the engineering investigation and my communication with all of the parties involved is shown in the 'communications timeline'. So, I have some experience in these matters.

There were no lawyers involved and so there were no redactions and all communication was immediately available to all of the parties that were involved. The contractor was SBG, Saudi BinLadin Group, which is undoubtedly a very large contractor, but they were treated in the same way as any company would be treated during the course of the investigation.

You can perhaps tell from the photographs that there was indeed a risk to public safety, but it was nothing like as severe as the risk that exists at Brimmond school. Also, I was always of the opinion that this telecoms mast could be rectified if it was done quickly enough, but I am not optimistic that Brimmond school can be rectified, at least not easily, at the stage we are at now. But, that is for BuroHappold to advise.

So, this is the way whistle-blowing has worked for many, many years in the rest of the world where it is supported by all levels of society, simply because it works. With respect, I think there is a lesson in this example for each one of you and if we cannot match it in Scotland, and we are not even close to matching it, then the public here is in for needless and really serious problems ahead and we are seeing that now, aren't we?

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr McAteer,

We are now only interested in achieving an outcome for myself and a return to work.

I attach the last correspondence I received from Professor Robert Rennie of Harper MacLeod on 23rd December 2019 and I think we can agree that whistle-blowers should not have to endure this type of treatment by legal professionals in Scotland.

It appears obvious to me, and I am sure it is now obvious to everyone, that I have been correct all along and so I am asking you to agree an outcome with both the Scottish Government and Harper Macleod and contact me as soon as you have it ready. As you know, I was expecting that to have been done by now.

We can leave the safety of the school to be determined by the others who are copied-in to this chain of Emails.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick




"I am not responding to anymore of your emails. Do not send any more. I dealt with your groundless complaint years ago".


Professor Robert Rennie
Consultant
Tel: 0141 227 9370
Fax: 0141 229 7370

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

Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie,

Can you provide Mr McAteer with some assistance on Monday with the Deputy First Minister and Harper MacLeod? Both have been a handful to deal with in the past and for that reason I would rather Mr McAteer had the backing of a Parliamentarian as we all want to see this resolved as quickly as possible now.

I won't send any more information to Hugh Mallett. I expect him to say that the school cannot be fixed and that explains why his opinion has been covered-up by the Council and Hub since early 2018. I don't know where that puts the Council and Hub with respect to criminal law - perhaps it is best not to ask?

I have sent him a suggested solution which was reviewed by some of the best experts in the world back in 2017. As I say, he is unlikely to accept it, in which case the school may have to be re-built from new on another site and the probable cost of that will be in the order of £30m.

Finally, trailing is the initial Email to Bruce Caldow of Harper MacLeod which started all of this off more than 8-years ago. Has anyone asked him why he didn't just do as I asked and pick-up the phone to consult with a geotechnical expert? I have asked, of course I have, but he refuses to answer. This tragic outcome was predicted as long ago as 2014 and it was always going to happen.

I have little doubt that this will prove to be one of the biggest foul-ups in decades of world engineering and, as I have reiterated many times now, I can only compare it with the Hyatt Regency Collapse of 1981 and that really is disgraceful.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick



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 Construction 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. Surely employees should be able to raise concerns about engineering, especially on government funded projects, without fear of being of being terminated on the grounds of 'poor communication skills'.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie and Gary,

I understand that Hugh Mallett is now fully engaged in solving this. He will be producing a great deal of information just now, far more than I am producing but he can only send that information to his client, Hub, and whether Hub then pass it on to others is the issue that I have been complaining about for years. I copy-in Audit Scotland as the secrecy under which Hub is permitted to operate in Scotland is not compatible with any of the construction or safety laws which have been in existence in the UK for decades and it is only a matter of time before it results in needless deaths occurring.

The problem has been Harper MacLeod's Euan Pirie, who instructed Hub and Aberdeen City Council not to issue any of Hugh Mallett's opinions. It sounds very much to me that Mr Pirie has been got-at by the Deputy First Minister but, whether or not that is the case, Mr Pirie is now in an isolated position with respect to my understanding of safety law and he will be more nervous than anyone of the outcome of this.

One further thing I learned yesterday was that the 40-odd expert opinions that I submitted back in 2017 were weighed, by Euan Pirie, against the opinions of a few employees of Ogilvie Construction - Andy Day, Andy Park, David Berry, Kirsty Kirk and Donald MacDonald; they are not engineers and it seems extraordinary that Hub's lawyer selected their opinions over the opinions of some of the best engineers in the world. It sounds more like an act of desperation, doesn't it?

Hence, Ogilvie Construction have no engineering opinions to offer and Hugh Mallett will tell you the same thing. We have all waited for 6-years and there is nothing there. It's been an 'empty box' so to speak and it sadly makes Scotland into something of a basket-case in terms of world engineering with our 'visual inspection reports' and all the rest of it. God-knows how much this is going to cost to fix.

From my perspective, it was important to remain until I was successful. Remember though that I cannot achieve an outcome without your assistance and so stay focussed on that for the next few days, please. That is simpler to achieve than anything that I have done over the years, or that Hugh Mallett is doing just now. The EIS are copied-in to everything and they can engage with the Council and with others from now-on, as they wish.

Finally, I know Hugh Mallett in as much as I had a few of conversations with him back in 2014. He is in position where he may be accused under criminal law in the event of a building collapse and so he will remove himself from that position. I do not expect it will take long for him to do that and Euan Pirie will take his place but let me reiterate that I now want out of this investigation as I have been engaged for far too long now in work that should not have had to be undertaken by any member of the public.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie and Gary,

Can I ask that you both ensure that I am released within the next few days, please? There is no more that I can do. I have carried-out this investigation single-handedly and I am the only person who is not being paid. I presume that someone has now asked Hugh Mallett?

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Gary,

Can we have a closing meeting on Friday please? Hugh Mallett is the antithesis of a bullshitter and he has obviously put John Swinney and Harper MacLeod back in their box.

I copy-in Bob because this case must be one of the most needlessly convoluted he has ever known. Other than myself, it has been Englishmen and just about every nationality in the world, except Scotsmen, that have solved this case. It would be fair to say that, wouldn't it?

So, a meeting on Friday and then we are finished.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick



On Monday, 7 November 2022 at 09:26:31 GMT, Baillie J (Jackie), MSP wrote:


Dear Stephen



I have emailed Mr McAteer this weekend to offer assistance with any request of John Swinney that will help conclude matters for you.



Best wishes



Jackie

Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie,

All that I am interested in at this point is a personal outcome and a return to work and if Mr McAteer is handling that, then that is acceptable. I presume that, on this occasion, he is getting all the help he needs from Mr Swinney?

The rest is now for the EIS and I have repeated it so many times that there is no need for me to do so again. I will provide them with further assistance if they ask for it and I recall Bob Matheson making them the same offer some time ago.

From a Scottish governmental perspective, it is the lack of proper adherence to standards and laws of Hub and Harper MacLeod that will be of great concern, but I will leave that with Audit Scotland as I will not be pursuing it any further.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie and Gary,

Let me make an additional point regarding my return to work: Usually, if you lose your job because of dishonesty, then it becomes difficult to find another job. In construction, you can lose your job due to honesty and, if that happens, then it becomes virtually impossible to find another job. That is the situation that I have been left in since 2014 and that is why Ministerial assistance is essential. I have offered to relocate, worldwide, to provide a solution that works for everyone and Mr McAteer is well aware of that.

I am still expecting this to be resolved to an outcome on Friday and a return to work is very much part of what I am expecting.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie and Gary,

Can you arrange the meeting between myself and Mr McAteer on Friday and confirm that to me today, please? The preparatory work should be done by John Swinney and his team and I expect that is now underway.

I want to be removed from this investigation on Friday. My ethical responsibility was to make a 'Protected Disclosure' - it was not to do everyone's job for them.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear All,

I want to leave this investigation on Friday 11th November and, to do that, I require clarity on whether the Protected Disclosure that I made in 2014 was correct, or not. I think that it was correct, it was the right thing to do and if I had been listened to then or at any time since, then this outcome would have been avoided.

As I have explained, the only engineer with authority to make a final determination on this is Hugh Mallett, of BuroHappold. He made his determination long ago and if you are all still waiting for it to be sent to you, then that perhaps tells you something?

Can I suggest that we work around Hub and Harper MacLeod (I presume they are the problem) and ask Scotland's Head of Building Standards, Stephen Garvin, to issue the determination? I say that because it is now a public safety matter and so within his remit rather than the remit of Hub and Harper MacLeod.

I had a long meeting with Mr Garvin on 23rd May 2019 at which he agreed to assist Aberdeen City Council to investigate this case properly, but he never returned to me with an outcome. If he had returned, then this would have been over by now, but he didn't respond. The trailing Email confirming the meeting is from Mr Garvin and, for simplicity, I have elected not to attach the minutes, although either myself or Mr Garvin can provide these if anyone wants to see them.

Whistle-blowing only works if it is concluded quickly and Bob Matheson has indicated that an acceptable timeframe for a case like this one to be concluded, from the whistle-blowers perspective, is 4-8 weeks and that works for everyone. The school can be fixed at Contractor's expense and I can get-on with my life. The example from KSA which I sent recently was concluded in 6-weeks and so 4-8 weeks sounds about right, doesn't it. This case has run-on for 424 weeks and so it has been a series of missed opportunities by all and you are only fortunate that a structural failure has not already occurred as a result of that.

So, can we all start communicating, please?

Dear Jackie and Gary,

Friday's meeting should only be with Mr McAteer and so advise me a time, please.

Thank You,

S. Dick


From: Stephen Garvin, Scottish Building Standards
Date: 4th June 2019

Dear Stephen


I have made changes and also added more initials against certain points to make clear who was making the point.



We will pursue the action stated with Aberdeen City Council and keep you informed.



Regards



Stephen

Anonymous said...

Dear All,

As I explained yesterday, I am expecting the situation that I have been left in to be resolved to an outcome at a meeting tomorrow in Mr McAteer's office. So far, I have received no confirmation that the meeting is going to take place.

Therefore, let me say again, I have solved this case single-handedly for all of you and I do not expect to continue in year after year perpetual unemployment because I have done that.

Communicate please and sort-out, between yourselves, who is doing what from now-on but my contribution is over and I am expecting to receive confirmation of a final closing meeting, from Mr McAteer, within the next few hours.

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear All,

I didn't receive a response from Mr McAteer or Ms Baillie today and so I will continue waiting.

As far as the rest of this case is concerned, it is solved when Hugh Mallett's opinion is issued. He is the only engineer authorised to provide an opinion. The opinion has existed for many years and the following are my suggestions for getting it issued to those who ought to see it:

1. The impression that has been given in all correspondence that I have seen is that the school is safe and Hugh Mallett is aware of that. If an accident occurs at the school which is caused by any of the effects that I have previously described, then he may be held responsible because he is the engineer with authority and he elected to say nothing when asked whether the school was safe, or not.

2. If its release is being blocked for contractual reasons by Harper MacLeod and Hub, then it can be requested by the EIS from Aberdeen City Council and it is the duty of the Council to provide it under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

3. Stephen Garvin is the leader of building standards in Scotland and so he is personally responsible for ensuring that the as-built design (which includes the 5m deep trench) has been checked by Hugh Mallett and another independent engineering team from within BuroHappold. This is a requirement of the Scottish Government's SER certification scheme - and it has not been done.

So, either of the forgoing will provide the staff at the school with the explanation they are looking for. Additionally, it would help enormously if the Institution of Civil Engineers would withdraw the visual inspection reports as they are indefensible and have only caused delay and false hope among the parties that are involved here.

I have made all of the above points many times over the years but one point that I have not made is that the only party who has gained from this delay is the Contractor. Everyone else stands to suffer reputational damage and that is why this so rarely happens elsewhere in the world. BuroHappold may have a different view on this of course, and they have wider experience than I have, but that is the way I see it.

I have been blacklisted for the past 8-years and prevented from working in the UK and overseas by the Contractor. That is why it is so essential that whistle-blowing cases are fast-tracked to completion, within one or two months and I explained that all of you earlier. So, let me repeat again, I have asked Mr McAteer to resolve this for me to an outcome and I have asked for that to be done tomorrow, please.

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/lornecrerar
About. I am one of the two founding partners of Harper Macleod LLP and the firm's Chairman. I am the firm's Senior Partner in the Banking & Finance and …

Occupation: Chairman & Co-Founder at Harper Macleod
500+ connections
Title: Chairman & Co-Founder at …
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
Professor Lorne D Crerar CBE FRSE - Harper Macleod LLP
harpermacleod.co.uk
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
Laura Ann Sheridan - Harper Macleod LLP
harpermacleod.co.uk
Global web icon
Laura Ann Sheridan - Senior Solicitor - Harper Macleod LLP - …
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Senior Management - OGILVIE CONSTRUCTION
ogilvie-construction.co.uk

You never managed to pin anything on Professor Rennie and nor did I, but we may have more luck with Professor Crerar. I looks like it anyway.

Anonymous said...

Hugh Mallett too....so well done.

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
Kirsty Kirke - Framework Manager - Morrison Construction - Li…
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
Euan Pirie - Head of Infrastructure and Projects - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
Laura Ann Sheridan - Harper Macleod LLP
harpermacleod.co.uk

Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie and Gary,

I am being offered UK Government jobs as a Site Manager just now. The jobs are in the NW and NE of England and in London. Another one arrived 5-minutes ago.

Firstly, a Site Manager is basically a General Foreman and that is not a job I have ever done before. I therefore want to work overseas as a Construction Manager, which is an entirely different job. I don't know who is organizing this, but they ought to be getting this right by now.

The job with Saudi Arabian Parsons was perfect and I would have accepted that instantly, but presumably I have not been selected for it. It's not going to be easy because of my age and explaining away the past 4-years, but that's what needs to be done.

Also, before I leave (and I want to leave at short notice) I want to be paid and for 3No 3rd parties to be paid also. I presume that is being calculated just now by Gary.

I presume this means that I have been right all along?

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

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 grounds of 'poor communication skills'.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear All,

I rediscovered the attached graph this morning. It has been explained to many of you over the years and it shows the steep drop-off in soil strength with increasing moisture content. I suspect that most first-year engineering students will be familiar with this graph and the general concept that wet soil is much weaker than dry soil can, I think, be accepted by all of us.

When the Brimmond Soil Investigation Report states that the bearing capacity of the soil will drop from 150kN/m2 to <75kN/m2 when it becomes wet, that guidance is based upon this graph. Just follow the trajectory of the graph from its design maximum (which is 150kN/m2 in this case) when the soil is relatively dry, to its actual available bearing capacity when the soil becomes wet. That may be 75kN/m2, but could be easily be less and the trajectory of the graph explains that.

This is the engineering I have followed since I first explained it to Harper MacLeod in the Email trailing.

The point that is made is that the building is stable only when the soil is relatively dry and this is the engineering which supports that statement. It could hardly be simpler, could it? According to the Design Standard, as soon as hydraulic failure is noticed, Hugh Mallett from BuroHappold should have been consulted for advice. I understand that he was consulted, but his advice wasn't followed and 'Visual Inspection Reports' were issued instead which give the misleading impression that the building is safe and there is nothing to worry about.

At the stage we are at, this will not be an easy problem to solve. In fact, it may not even be possible to solve it now, but we can all defer to BuroHappold on that.

I was expecting to hear from Mr McAteer yesterday regarding an outcome for myself and a return to work, but he didn't respond. I have repeated my position often enough and there is no need for me to do so again. I explained to Mr McAteer that once you make a Protected Disclosure against any Contractor, your future in this country is over and, therefore, I have requested that I be re-located overseas. Can I ask Mr McAteer to respond to me on Monday, please.

Thank you,

S. Dick


Anonymous said...

From: Fiona Stage/Brendan O'Hara
Date: 6th January 2020


Dear Stephen,

Further to earlier correspondence, Brendan has received the following advice from Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP,

‘Thank you for your email of 13 December 2021 regarding your constituent, Mr Stephen Dick, and Brimmond School in Aberdeen.

The Scottish Government has taken the concerns of your constituent very seriously.

My officials have written to your constituent on numerous occasions about this matter, and Aberdeen City Council, the owner of the building, has, again, categorically assured us that Mr Dick’s claims about the construction of the school are incorrect.

Aberdeen City Council has stated that it has exchanged numerous correspondence with your constituent over a number of years. Throughout this period, Aberdeen City Council assures us that it has treated the allegations seriously and has carried out a number of surveys/investigations with the assistance of professional consultancies. These works have been a mix of both intrusive and non-intrusive investigations. None of these surveys/investigations suggest that there is a subsidence issue.

Aberdeen City Council has undertaken a range of measures to give assurance over the building and works carried out and will continue to ensure that enhanced regular monitoring is undertaken at Brimmond School as part of the planned management of its estate.

Employment Rights Act 1996 includes a part headed “Protected Disclosures” and that is the wording used in legislation for what is more colloquially known as whistleblowing. The law relating to protected disclosures applies across the UK. ‘

Brendan hopes this is helpful.

Best wishes,

Fiona Stage
for
Brendan O’Hara MP

Anonymous said...

Dear ICE,

I have copied you into all correspondence in recent years and that may amount to several hundred pages. In that time, you have elected not to respond to me and that is one of the main reasons this case has endured, unresolved, for as long as it has and, in the context of the regulatory service provided by other engineering institutions worldwide, that is very disappointing.

The only action that I have requested from you in that time is that you carry-out an audit on the short Visual Inspection Reports (attached) by your members Ramsay and Chalmers, Fairhurst and Cundall. My contention is that they misrepresent the design data and advice to designers contained within the Brimmond Soil Investigation Report, which is also attached and, in doing that, they present the false impression that the building is safe.

There is a big difference between a Design Check by a geotechnical expert, and a Visual Inspection Report by someone who is not a geotechnical expert and I think we can all agree upon that. The problem with these Visual Inspection Reports is that they have been used since 2016 to justify the safety of this building so that, in the event of an accident, they will become key pieces of evidence that the ICE may be deemed to have accepted, simply because you are aware of them, you have been asked to comment on them and you have not done so. Many may believe that you have seen nothing untoward which needs to be corrected and that will be construed as meaning that you have accepted them, but I presume that is not the case?

Let me say again that there is no other information in existence which supports the safety of this as-built design and so it is crucial that the ICE do what many other professional institutions would do in a situation such as this and that means that a thorough interrogate this information should be carried-out. I have witnessed the ASCE do this before and they are extraordinarily fast and thorough.

On the wider subject of whether Visual Inspection Reports are acceptable or not, it is my understanding that subsequent to the Cole Inquiry of 2017, they were no longer to be relied upon in Scotland and yet here we all are, five years later, still using them to authenticate the safety of design and construction. Forgive me, but in the context of all that has been uncovered at the Grenfell Inquiry, a professional body such as the ICE should perhaps be more circumspect about continuing to lend its support to your members in maintaining this method of signing-off buildings as safe, as it has been proven not to work.

The Visual Inspection Reports are short and so they will not take long to review. In my opinion they contain many errors but I have highlighted them for you and that will save some time. In the interim period, can you advise Jackie Baillie MSP what she should advise the others to do with these Reports because they are still obviously relying upon them? My opinion is that they should be disregarded as they have wasted enough of everyone's time already, but I will leave that judgement for you.

Finally, we are waiting on the release of a proper Design Check by BuroHappold's geotechnical expert. He is the engineer with design liability and his review will be thorough and capable of being accepted by everyone involved and that will, at last, be the end of the matter.

So, I am not expecting you to respond to me, but respond to Ms Baillie please.

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie and Gary,

Can we have this concluded by the end of this week please? I keep asking you both to do that, no-one responds and so nothing gets done. But, if you cannot solve it then no-one can and so I am asking you both to solve it please.

What I failed to mention to Brendan O'Hara was that I have paid around £50,000 to lawyers and have ended-up doing it all myself. He knows about this and he asked Shirley-Anne Somerville to investigate it early this year, but she side-stepped it and didn't mention it in her response. It may appear to be a relatively small amount in the scale of things, but it explains why whistle-blowing in Scotland has ceased to exist.

I have not discussed any financial settlement with Gary and I am content to leave that to him and I will comment on it when I see it and that should be later this week. What I have been clear about is the job must be overseas and that the 3rd parties must be paid separately and not by me, but I will leave that for him.

We're now on week 426, and we should have been finished on, or before, week 8. So, it's been an epic failure. Hugh Mallett can take over as 'Engineer of Record' from Friday onwards. I've been doing it FOC for the past 8-years and it's time for Hugh to take over from here. He may disagree with me, but I don't expect him to. BuroHappold are a worldwide engineering firm with a reputation to protect and they know how to handle parliamentarians like John Swinney.

The way I intend looking at this is that when it is settled then it is over and I will not communicate with Press, the EIS or with anyone else. They have been copied-in for years and they can work everything out for themselves.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Stephen



I responded to your email last week to advise that I had emailed Mr McAteer.



Best wishes



Jackie

Anonymous said...

OK Jackie, thanks.

I have asked the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) to respond to you with their findings on the 'Visual Inspection Reports'. That's all of them since 2016. They should respond to a parliamentarian. Can you follow-up on that please? I am not interested in seeing their response and it can be for you to distribute as you wish.

Anonymous said...

Dear Fiona and Brendan,

Prior to yesterday, I has been a long time, many months in fact, since I contacted you about this case. There are a few additional items which I should let everyone know about simultaneously, as they are of crucial importance just now:


1. I have asked Mr McAteer to resolve all aspects of this case for me to a conclusion by Friday 18th November. Specifically, I am expecting to receive payment of a settlement and I have asked him to calculate that for me, and I have asked to be returned to employment straight away.

2. I have not worked for the best part of the past 8-years due to being blacklisted by the Contractor. That is why it is so vital that 'Protected Disclosures' are protected because, when they are not, this is what inevitably happens. As you can imagine, this has made life needlessly difficult for myself and my family over the years.

3. I have already paid lawyers' fees amounting to approximately £50,000 so far and I shouldn't have paid anything to make a Protected Disclosure. I don't know if everyone's aware of that, but it amounts to a great disincentive to any members of the public to come forward in future as I have done.

4. In the light of the Cole Inquiry and the more recent Grenfell Inquiry, I believe that it is irresponsible to present Visual Inspection Reports as proof of compliance with Design Standards. I have asked the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) to communicate with Jackie Baillie MSP and she can let the rest of you know what the ICE recommend you all do with the Visual Inspection Reports which have already been presented to you by Hub.

5. The 'Engineer of Record' so to speak, that is the only engineer with authority to adjudicate in this case, is Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold. At the stage we are at now, it doesn't matter what I say, or anyone else says, his is the only opinion that matters.

6. I would appreciate the assistance of everyone copied-in to this Email to ensure that I am removed from this investigation, entirely, by this Friday.


If I can make one last comment about whistle-blowing: In my experience, it is something that many people will instinctively do without thinking through the potential consequences for them and that is why it is so vital that government ensure that a protective framework is in place for those who elect to step forward like this. Whistle-blowers are not always right of course, but my experience has been that in the engineering industry, they very often are right and so their instincts and their initiative should be protected.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie and Gary,

As you are both aware, I want this to end, for me, on Friday. Hugh Mallett is back at work now and it is inevitable that he agrees with me.

That will bring to light the large number of public sector-figures that have been involved so far; each of whom have said: "Everyone that needs to know about this school does know and they all say that nothing is wrong".

Let us just say that the systems used in the Middle-East are different to the systems used in Scotland and what they would do just now is blame collusion between Ogilvie Construction and Harper MacLeod. Everything that has gone wrong can be traced back to that.

That's a suggestion for you. I understand that both Ogilvie Construction and Harper MacLeod know what is coming anyway and so I am just explaining it to you both, if you don't know already.

So, it is just as well that I persisted for all these years isn't it.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

A sign of the decay of democracy in Scotland. I don't think that England is much better by the way, but there is no excuse for this.

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: 108.3KPosts: 13.5KJoined Date: January 2011
John Swinney on Twitter
John Swinney on Twitter: "👇"
EXPLORE FURTHER
Global web icon
FMQs: John Swinney mocked as he steps in for Sturgeon
express.co.uk
Global web icon
The Laird Report: Professor Robert Rennie, LL.B, PhD, FRSA ..…
glasgowunihumanrights.…
Global web icon
ANDREW NEIL: How Sturgeon turned Scotland into a banana …
dailymail.co.uk
Global web icon
Articles by Norman Silvester’s Profile - Muck Rack
muckrack.com
Global web icon
Rob Polkinghorne - Chief Executive Officer - LinkedIn
uk.linkedin.com

Anonymous said...

From: Bruce Caldow, Harper MacLeod
Date: 18th May 2015

"In relation to telling Aberdeen Council, that is a matter for you but I have to observe that it will not necessarily assist you to receive a favourable resolution to this dispute.

"Please note that in the course of the tribunal proceedings, the Employment Judge will look at this dispute through the eyes of an employment lawyer. 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.

The judge will not focus heavily on whether or not the school has been badly built, or that there may be a problem with foundations and land; the Judge has to be satisfied with is that you believed that to be the case and that your belief was reasonable.
However the Judge does not require to make any definitive finding that the school is badly built or that Ogilvie definitely did any wrong in the matters of contamination, digging trenches or in relation to underlying ground conditions (etc). It is sufficient that the judge considers that there was, in your view, something awry and that you had reasonable belief of the same.

Moving forward John, I recommend that you carefully consider the implications of running this case to a conclusion and turning down settlement. Please understand that the outcome to this hearing could well be against you – if the employer persuades the tribunal that the reason for your dismissal was their view of your performance, it will not matter that your performance was good, bad or indifferent in fact, it will simply be the case that the tribunal will believe that your dismissal was caused by your employer believing you were not performing well. There is an acute distinction to consider.

In addition you have to carefully weigh up the difficulties that could be caused for you if you lose – reputationally this could be problematic for you".

Anonymous said...

Dear Fiona and Brendan,

The following exemplifies the problem with Harper MacLeod and Ogilvie Construction. It was sent to me by Bruce Caldow of Harper MacLeod, 8-months after I made the Protected Disclosure to him and 9-months after I made it to Ogilvie Construction.

Harper Macleod had been sending me monthly invoices for £1500, plus VAT and occasionally £3000, plus VAT, but they didn't investigate whether I was right, or wrong. I wasn't asking them to accept my explanation, but I did ask them to consult with a geotechnical expert and they didn't do that. Hence, the initiative failed. The school was built and my complaint about the foundations was never investigated. The unwillingness to investigate now is because it will establish that I was right all-along and the question that will then be asked, of Harper MacLeod, is: "Why did no-one investigate this at the time?".

If you compare this advice, to the advice I sent you earlier today, it is fairly obvious that this explanation of whistle-blowing law is incorrect and so what chance does a whistle-blower have in Scotland?

Just over two years later, I went on to consult with a large number of geotechnical experts on my own and you now have your own geotechnical expert, Hugh Mallett, who will provide guidance to you. So, we have reached the end point at last, it has just taken 8-years longer than it should have taken, thanks to Harper MacLeod, and, as a consequence, it will cost a great deal more than it should have done to rectify and the public will end-up paying, instead of Ogilvie Construction.

I have explained that I want a solution to this and I presume that we all do. Therefore, my advice to you is to clear Harper MacLeod and Ogilvie Construction from under your feet because both are doing all they can to save their own necks at the moment.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick



Anonymous said...

Dear Fiona and Brendan,

Forgive me for sending this number of Emails to you, but this investigation, from my perspective, should be brought to a close on Friday 18th November and everyone copied-in is aware of that.

My advice to everyone yesterday was to regard Ogilvie Construction and Harper MacLeod as the 'vested interests' which have brought this situation about and so no-one should expect either of these two companies to respond with honesty and accountability at the stage we are at now.

I have suggested that all of the parties that are involved take engineering guidance only from Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold. Then, once that guidance is understood, decisions can be taken by the rest of you.

I am expecting to attend a meeting on Friday with Mr McAteer which will close this case to an outcome. The case will no doubt continue for many of the rest of you, but not for me. As you can appreciate, I have conducted this investigation single-handedly for many years now, with no assistance from anyone, practically no communication from anyone and without pay and that situation should be ended on Friday. I understand that authority from the Deputy First Minister is required for this meeting to take place. I have asked my MSP, Ms Baillie to organize this and she has deferred to Mr McAteer and he has been unable to organize it and this back and forth fandango between the two of them has been ongoing since early May. If anyone wishes to understand why whistle-blowing doesn't work in Scotland, then this example of trying to organize a closing meeting, which is so crucial for the whistle-blower's outcome, eight years after the meeting should have taken place, pretty much encapsulates why it doesn't work here.

Are you able to communicate with the Deputy First Minister and Mr McAteer and organize this meeting for me? Once the meeting is set-up and a time for the meeting is issued to me, we can then leave everything to Mr McAteer.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Brendan,

Mr McAteer will only contact me when he has received authority from the Deputy First Minister to proceed. He hasn't contacted me and so he obviously hasn't received that authority yet. Can you pursue that for me, please?

Dear Gary,

Ensure that everything is resolved to an outcome on Friday, please. That outcome will include an immediate return to work.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr McAteer,

Kindly ask Natalie to provide me a time for Friday's meeting. I have asked Brendan O'Hara to ask John Swinney for authorization and so set-up the meeting please and authorization can follow either later today, or tomorrow.

If Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold is now advising everyone on the safety of the school, and I presume that he is, then my role has ended.

You do know that if this had been handled correctly by your colleagues at Harper MacLeod, the closing meeting would have been held on 13th November 2014, at the latest. Instead, we are having it on 18th November 2022.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr McAteer,

Do you want to ask John Swinney to attend tomorrow? I'm ambivalent to be honest, but he's the only parliamentarian who will get anything done and I'm clearly not for waiting any longer.

After tomorrow, the only parties involved will be BuroHappold and they will report to Hub. Hub then report to Aberdeen City Council and the Council report to the EIS. (I must have explained this about twenty times already)

As far as BuroHappold are concerned, their report exists and I have read it and it makes anything that I have written look very calm in comparison. So, can I suggest that everyone stops lying about this and starts doing their job?

Hugh Mallett goes-on at length in his report asking who 'gave authority' to do this and to do that and I have said the same thing many times.

The authority lies with him and that's the contractual position. I've done everything so far because no-one else was doing it, but it is Hugh Mallett's responsibility to take-over from here. Whether the school can be fixed or not is his decision and, what needs to be done to correct it, is his decision too.

The subject of 'risk' in respect of the behaviour of groundwater and land is best understood by him. There may be things that can be done and if there is, then he will know what they are. Specifically, guidance as to whether the school is safe, or not, in the months ahead can only be issued by him. Believe me, the Council and Hub do not understand this type of risk.

After tomorrow, I will have no input and I am copying in Audit Scotland so that there is a record of that. From tomorrow, Hugh Mallett is the only engineer with authority to advise. He may agree with me, in which case a very big problem exists.

Ask Natalie to provide me a time please.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Brendan,

I understand that prolonged heavy rain is forecast for Aberdeen, for today and tomorrow, and this will be the first prolonged heavy rain of this winter. In previous years, I have been warning your colleagues that this risks structural failure from a failure point at the bottom of the building and that we are close to that occurring. As I say below, the consensus view was that I have been exaggerating and it wouldn't actually happen.

Responsibility for issuing this warning now falls to BuroHappold, who are experts in this subject and who are the 'Engineers of Record', so to speak, for the Brimmond Project. Can I suggest that you ask Fraser Innes of Hub, to report to you what Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold's opinion is. That is the shortest way to getting this answered, finally, for the benefit of those who are using this building every day.

As I have made clear many, many times, this is the result of a construction mistake by the Contractor. The longer it goes-on unresolved by all of you the worse the outcome is going to become and I am not only talking in terms of financial cost. That's obvious, isn't it?

By the way, I am still waiting to hear from Mr McAteer.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

I'll visit you in the office at 2.30pm.

On Thursday, 17 November 2022 at 13:46:56 GMT, Gary McAteer wrote:


Stephen

We need to speak. I will be in the office tomorrow afternoon and available by telephone. Perhaps 230pm would be a good time. I am not available today.

Gary McAteer

Sent from my iPhone

Anonymous said...

The following letter (or something like it) will be sent to Hugh Mallett by Gary McAteer and Jackie Baillie combined. He made me promise not to send it to 3rdparties, but your assistance has been more valuable than his has been over the years and so here it is:

"Dear Mr Mallett

Brimmond School, Aberdeen - Structural Stability of ‘As-Built’ Design

I have been assisting Mr Dick in achieving a resolution to this case since 2016 and I understand that many are now anxious to see it resolved. In resolving the case of course, we also resolve the bigger issue and that is whether the school is safe, or not.
Mr Dick advises that you are the equivalent of the ‘Engineer of Record’ in this case and that only you have the authority to make the decision on whether the building is compliant with regulatory standards and is therefore safe. The standard that he has referred to in the past, is EC7.
The point at issue here is not the BuroHappold design, but a last-minute change, by the Contractor, to that design which involved the installation of a 5m deep, clay filled trench along the entire western perimeter of the site. Mr Dick ascertains that this change has caused a re-set of the soil conditions upon which the stability of the building depends. Specifically, the moisture content has risen, which has caused an exponential drop in the bearing capacity of the soil. Mr Dick has stated that the confined artesian conditions which are present at Brimmond School make this site fragile with respect to groundwater and that the groundwater flooding problems that have developed as a result of the installation of this trench will result, inevitably, in structural failure and his reason for saying that is that geotechnical failure, and that is hydraulic failure in this case, has already occurred and structural failure is the next inevitable step. It is an exceptionally grave prognosis of course.
Let me say that Mr Dick has relied heavily upon advice from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in recent years; that is advice from a large number of individual members and upon publications, specifically the precedent case of the 1981 Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse. Responsibility for that collapse was apportioned to the Engineer of Record because he failed to properly check a design change, but his responses to the client during the construction period gave the impression that he had checked it and it was safe. No-one is claiming that Brimmond School is presently showing signs of imminent collapse, but it would appear that the type of structural failure that Mr Dick is concerned about, subsidence failure from the bottom, often occurs suddenly and without warning and there do appear to be signs that the land surrounding the school is flooding with groundwater each winter and sinking and that is unusual.
This all started more than 8-years ago, but the records are substantial and so the chronology of the most significant events can be set-out for you as below:
1. A design review was issued by yourself on or around July 2014 warning the Contractor against carrying-out unnecessarily deep excavations whilst looking for contaminated soil.
2. Mr Dick, who was the Project Manager, relayed these instructions to the staff on the site and left for annual vacation. When he returned from vacation, he learned of the 5m deep trench and he complained to the Contractor’s Directors that boiling was taking place in various places within the building platform and that the artesian layers had been irreparably damaged. He was terminated a week later.
3. Mr Dick did go on to issue warnings to all of the parties involved in the project that water inundation, soil collapse and subsidence would occur if they just continued with construction, but they continued, apparently without checking with anyone first.

Anonymous said...

4. When construction was complete, water inundation, soil collapse and subsidence started to occur almost immediately and so he reported that and I accompanied him to a meeting with the Scottish Government at which they stated that the design had been checked by a experts and that it was safe. It transpires that two visual inspection reports, not design checks, were issued, one by Ramsay and Chalmers and the other by Fairhurst. Both dismissed any concerns of subsidence.
5. Mr Dick then consulted, approximately 1-year later, with expert members of the ASCE and their responses agreed that Mr Dick’s concerns were justified and so he sent this information to the Scottish Government and received the letter (attached) 4-weeks later, from the Deputy First Minister, stating that you had checked the design and that you disagreed with Mr Dick’s concerns.
6. It is understood that BuroHappold produced a further design review, dated on or around May 2018, but that has not been made available by the client, Hub.
Mr Dick has distributed the Deputy First Minister’s letter widely over the course of the past 5-years. As you can appreciate, it is a letter which effectively stopped all future investigation and communication regarding the safety of this building as the impression given is that the ’Engineer of Record’ has checked this design and is satisfied that it is compliant and therefore safe. Faced with this, there has been no-one else for Mr Dick to turn to. He is obviously certain that structural failure could occur at any moment, especially during the winter months, but he has been told, by the Deputy First Minister, that you have checked it and that you disagree with him and so the matter is ended.
The problem I see with this is that if you disagree with Mr Dick, then that puts you in disagreement with the ASCE members. If it was your opinion against Mr Dick’s opinion, then there would be less of a problem, but your opinion against Mr Dick, and 40No others, presents us with such a marked difference of opinion that many cannot understand it.
From Mr Dick’s perspective, he only wants to get this finally agreed so that he can get back to work but, as I say above, the much bigger issue is the safety of the school going into another winter term and so we should perhaps do all that we can just now to bring this stasis to an end. I believe that there was a great deal of heavy rain in Aberdeen today for example and it is forecast to continue well into next week.
You are the only Engineer with the authority to solve this to an outcome. I have spent a great deal of time with Mr Dick over the years and my impression has always been that he believes that his concerns are genuine and many other geotechnical experts are in agreement with him. However, it is only you who can decide whether these concerns are genuine or not, or whether he has been exaggerating.
Can I request that you review the precedent case: Ethics Case Study 4 - The Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse of 1981 by the ASCE and, if you agree with the advice provided to ‘Engineers of Record’ within it, that you communicate your precise engineering concerns, if you have any, regarding the safety of this as-built design. That is the only information that we require from you and then this case can be finally concluded to an outcome for Mr Dick.





Anonymous said...

Dear Jackie,

The Friday meeting with Gary McAteer finally took place. He is sending a letter to Hugh Mallett. My suggested letter is attached. He can send this as it is, or he can send his own letter and I will leave that up to him.

In engineering, you cannot say that you have checked something, or allow the impression to be given that engineering has been checked if it hasn't been checked. The letter therefore asks Hugh Mallett: "Have you checked this as-built design, and did you say it was OK?" If he did not say that, he will respond and so I expect him to respond.

I explained that my personal situation has been caused by Jonathan Moore and John Swinney and so by the Scottish Government. So, I am expecting my situation to be ended, this week, by them. I must have explained this twenty-times already.

Gary McAteer keeps giving me the impression that everyone is too busy to deal with this and it has nothing to do with them. I do not know what goes-on in Scottish politics and law nowadays but, almost anywhere else in the world, this would have been concluded many years ago and when a parliamentarian attempts to shut-down a safety investigation like this, and almost succeeds, then it is a problem, isn't it?

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...



----- Forwarded message -----
From: Stephen Dick
To: Hugh Mallett
Cc: Gary McAteer ; Baillie J (Jackie) MSP
Sent: Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 08:48:45 GMT
Subject: Brimmond School, Aberdeen - Design Authority

Dear Mr Mallett,

There was high rainfall in Aberdeen during Thursday and Friday of last week. I understand that it was the highest daily rainfall for several years. Heavy rainfall has previously resulted in the land surrounding the school being inundated with ground water for several days after the rain has stopped. I have explained the reasons for this so many times that there is no need for me to do so again. I will say again though that I believe this to be extraordinarily dangerous.

The reason that I stepped forward to report this back in 2014 was because if I had said nothing and continued, then I would be getting blamed for this now and I don't think there is any doubt about that. As I see it, there are two engineers with authority in this project; I am one of them as I led the construction team and you are the other as you led the design team. This is a matter of a construction mistake affecting design compliance and so it should involve both of us. I have provided my opinion and now I am passing that responsibility over to you.

Once you lose your job then your authority to intervene in situations like this is reduced substantially, if not entirely. Hence, my authority is gone but you still have yours. You will make your own decision of course, but what I will say is that if you do not intervene and lead this to a conclusion now, then no-one else will do it. The risk then is that your continuing silence on this will be viewed as acquiescence and, if a structural failure occurs and it seems inevitable that it will, what should be seen as the Contractor's mistake, will be seen as BuroHappold's mistake. Would that be a fair observation?

My intention was to leave this investigation last week and, when that finally happens, there will be no further input from me. I understand that BuroHappold are bound by the conditions of their contract with Hub, but you also have to do what is right for the public and so I will leave it for you to make that balance if I may.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Gary,

Can I have all 3No points agreed to an outcome tomorrow. So, I can leave and Hugh Mallett can lead this from here. BuroHappold are a full-service consultant and they can manage all of the parties that are involved.

A job in the UK will not be acceptable and so it needs to be overseas. That is made difficult because of my age and what I have been doing for the past 4-years, going-on 8-years. I have explained that to you already, but that can be overcome.

I very much hope that this is the last Email I will have to send and so can you communicate with the others and get this agreed to an outcome.

Ask Natalie to give me a time for the meeting, please.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick


On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 16:20:25 GMT, Stephen Dick wrote:


OK get back to me tomorrow then.

I want it to be finished on Friday and that's the end.

Hugh Mallett is the same as me and if you don't engage then this is what inevitably happens. At the end of this, no-one is going to be blaming me for sending Emails, are they?

I will not send any more but I want to be finished on Friday - OK?


On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 16:05:12 GMT, Gary McAteer wrote:


Stephen

I’m busy this afternoon so will get back to you tomorrow. I’ve spoken to Jackie Baillie and I’ll be copying her in . In the meantime I remind you that you’d given a clear undertaking, mentioned in one of your subsequent emails that you would not do the things which you now doing

Tomorrow

Gary McAteer

Anonymous said...

Gary,

The following is the agenda for Friday's meeting:

1. Agreed settlement
2. Job overseas
3. Payment of 3No 3rd parties

This is all I want to agree upon and so please ensure that instruction is given by Mr Swinney for you to proceed.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear All,

I attach the letter which was sent to me and copied to all of you by BuroHappold's lawyer, Ms Winfield, on 29th November last year. I thought it best to leave it for a few weeks before responding and I very much hope that this will be the last Email that I send to all of you.

Before I start, Bob Matheson of Protect advised me that although the letter is a 'cease and desist' letter, which prohibits me from contacting BuroHappold, it does not prohibit any of you from contacting them and you may wish to do that, subject to what I am about to explain to you.

The key sentence is highlighted and it states: "BuroHappold does not have any concerns regarding the design itself and we are not aware of any allegations regarding the same". The design was of course changed early in the construction period, in July 2014, (I believe that everyone knows and accepts that?) but it was not subjected to the proper design checks required under the SER Certification scheme. It was subsequently discussed by many worldwide geotechnical experts who were all highly critical of it and that is the only point that BuroHappold were asked to answer, but did not answer.

Unauthorized design changes can cause what are called 'latent defects' which are chronic weaknesses in the original design. The defect we are discussing at Brimmond has already caused a failure of the land, specifically a number of hydraulic failures to the west and south of the building, and the next failure will be a structural failure which will be a deformation of the structure. That may, or may not, result in deaths and injuries but what it will almost certainly do is render the entire building as 'dangerous' and unsafe to use.

I explained to Jackie Baillie that BuroHappold, and Ogilvie Construction, carry what is called 'Professional Indemnity Insurance' which covers the cost of rectifying 'an honest mistake made by a professional'. So, on the face of it, any costs, however high they may be, arising from fixing this design change are covered by insurance and there should be no need for the Council to pay for anything. It should be designed by BuroHappold and the work carried-out by Ogilvie Construction, free of charge.

I also explained to Jackie Baillie that although the safety of the school has been checked and accepted by Hub, Aberdeen City Council and the Scottish Government, the only person with authority to check and accept the safety of the building is Hugh Mallett and, by virtue of Ms Winfield's letter, he has now done that. So, all of the previous checks by the public bodies and the multiple 'visual inspection reports' can now be discarded as only Hugh Mallett's opinion matters. Is his opinion correct though? It is so different from every other opinion that is available, and there are over 40No of them, that an independent expert opinion is essential to determine if he is correct. I suspect that he is not correct and I that we all know that by now?

Anonymous said...

I have explained the analogous case of the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse many, many times over the years. In that case, a latent defect caused the sudden collapse of part of the structure which resulted in the deaths of 114No people. That collapse is one of the best known in world engineering and it is explained by the American Society of Civil Engineers in their Ethics Case Study 4.

At the court proceedings which followed the collapse, the Engineer of Record, Jack Gillum, was blamed entirely for the collapse. As you can imagine, it was a devastating outcome for him and it brought about the closure of his engineering firm, GCE Consultants which, at the time, was one of the largest in the US. During the proceedings, Jack Gillum attempted to blame the contractor and the clerk of works and the local building standards office but, in the end, he was declared the Engineer of Record and the buck stopped with him. The crucial piece of evidence that brought about that verdict was a letter from Jack Gillum's engineer stating that he had checked the design for compliance when, in fact, that had not been done.

Jack Gillum's letter was very similar to Ms Winfield's letter and, remarkably, both Ms Winfield and the Institution of Civil Engineers who responded to me a couple of weeks ago, blame the contractor, the clerk of works and building standards. So, the similarities between the two cases are very clear aren't they and, most worryingly, the two cases appear to me to be converging upon the same inevitable outcome.

Jack Gillum was the 'Engineer of Record' and our equivalent is Hugh Mallett of BuroHappold. So, what happened to Jack Gillum could happen to Hugh Mallett in the event of a structural failure and I say that because the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse has been used as a precedent case in Construction Law Courts worldwide since the late 1980's and so Hugh Mallett should expect the same outcome. Following Ms Winfield's letter, I cannot see anyone else sharing responsibility for this now.

I appraised Mr Westland of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) how these cases are investigated by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and by the Saudi Council of Engineers (SCE). Both are comparable worldwide professional engineering bodies, one is bigger than the ICE and the other is smaller, but both carry out a really thorough design check before they issue any kind of opinion on a matter like this. The ASCE carry-out the checks themselves and the SCE commission independent experts to do it. For whatever reason, the design check for Brimmond School has not been done, by anyone, and so I asked for it to be done now and the rest of you may wish to support me and request that from the ICE?

In summary then, we have a situation whereby myself, many expert members of the ASCE and Fairhurst's geotechnical expert are saying one thing and BuroHappold is saying the opposite and we cannot both be right. If I, and the others, are correct, then the school is non-compliant and unsafe and structural failure could occur at any moment. This is clearly an engineering dispute and it is best to let the ICE resolve it for all of us. Essentially, it is a matter relating to the institution's Code of Ethics and it can only be dealt with by them at the stage we are at now.

Anonymous said...

I expressed my frustration to Jackie Baillie that this case has left me unemployable since 2014 and I asked her to consult with her colleagues at Holyrood, specifically John Swinney, to have it resolved and I asked her to do that urgently. Going back to the ASCE and the SCE, I explained that both of these professional bodies would have had this resolved within 4-8 weeks and that I would have been protected during that time. That, as far as I understand it, is a worldwide engineering standard and has been so for at least the last 20-years. What is wrong in Scotland and can anyone explain why no-one appears to understand the concept of whistle-blowing here?

I also made Jackie Baillie aware that many overseas countries will stop paying engineers, or contractors, or law-firms until cases like this one are resolved to an outcome. I first suggested that a couple of years ago and it is something that may resonate with the public's perception of transparency and fairness. It certainly brings everyone to the table and communication starts immediately you stop paying 'for-profit' companies. But, that is a decision for all of you to consider. All that I will say is that if this has been covered-up for the past 8-plus years by BuroHappold, Ogilvie Construction and Harper MacLeod, then you should all expect an entirely negative public reaction to that.

As far as further Press coverage is concerned, I am of the opinion that it helps and so it should perhaps be pursued and there are at least two possible avenues for the Press to follow just now.

I am waiting now on Jackie Baillie getting back to me with an outcome that gets me back to work and gets me compensated for my losses, by Ogilvie Construction and Harper MacLeod. Can I leave the rest of you to agree upon the safety of the school with the ICE and with BuroHappold?

Thank you,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Sybille and Rebecca,

The number is: 01436 840130

I have obviously been dealing exclusively with Bob until now and so there is a lot about this case that you will both be unaware of. At the stage we are at now though, there is no point in me reiterating any of the engineering to you. However, I will set-out the four requirements that I have to end this case:

1. My personal Email restored to being fully operational and a new password provided.
2. My last contingent job offer is attached and from it you can ascertain the income that I have lost. The financial settlement that I am offered should reflect this, but I will leave the details of that for your organization to finalize.
3. A job overseas. Because of my age (62) I am now beyond the normal age limit for working overseas and obtaining a visa is more difficult, but that obstacle can be overcome and it happens frequently. I do not want to work in Scotland again. I have offered to work in Africa or the Middle-East and so I am not being difficult or unduly prescriptive about location.
4. Payment for 3No third-parties that have assisted me. I have paid Scottish lawyers 50k so far. I would expect the amount offered for this purpose to be a significant uplift on that and I will distribute it to the third-parties myself.

That's about it. Sadly, in Scotland, we have an administration that seems determined to re-write laws and re-write engineering as they personally see the world and you will have seen evidence of this on the news recently. When you start doing that it inevitably goes badly, very quickly, for everyone concerned.

Kind Regards,

S. Dick

Anonymous said...

Dear Sybille and Rebecca,

Content wise, the following is what I had in mind:

Dear Jackie,

We had a conversation with Mr Dick earlier today regarding this case. As you will appreciate, he wants to conclude this to an outcome and return to work and our conversation was focussed on how we could assist him. We can certainly provide guidance to Mr Dick but it appears that an outcome, at this stage, can only be provided by the Scottish Government.

I understand that meetings have taken place between Mr Dick and the Scottish Government and a number of letters exchanged regarding this matter, including the letter attached by Mr Swinney. The point that everyone appears agreed upon is that the engineer with ultimate responsibility for the final as-built design is Hugh Mallett, of Buro Happold.

Buro Happold responded with a letter to Mr Dick on 30th November 2022, which is attached and I understand that this letter was copied to all of the parties that are involved. Mr Dick explained that such a letter should be provided with a set of design calculations in support of the conclusion that the building is safe. As you know, Mr Dick, with the support of many other expert engineers, contends that the building is not safe and that is the most important point at issue here and so are we able to go back to Buro Happold and request these design calculations?

Mr Dick stressed to us that it is not the original design that is the problem, but it is the change to that design and perhaps that point ought to be stressed to Buro Happold?

I understand that the calculations in this case are very concise, amounting to only a page or two of text and it can be requested from Buro Happold under the contract. If Mr Dick has been mistaken then he will accept that, but if he has not been mistaken and if he has been correct for this period of time, then that makes the situation we are in an incredibly grave one and so it appears that this information is crucial and, without it, this case may never be resolved.

There are four items that Mr Dick has requested our assistance in resolving for him but this is the most important of them and, once this is resolved to an outcome, the rest should follow relatively easily.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 459 of 459   Newer› Newest»