Saturday, 28 November 2015


Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street


6 April 2011



Ms Lindsey McNeill

Head of Corporate Services

Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland


PO Box 26300




Dear Ms McNeill,

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

I refer to your response of 5 April 2011 to my request for a review of information provided under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

The following statements in your letter, reproduced here in italics, merit consideration as detailed in my accompanying comments:



1.  I have now had the opportunity to undertake a full review of your FOI request dated 26 March 2011.’


My request for a review referred to points 1, 3 and 4 of the original PCCS response to my request for information. I also pointed out the PCCS’s premature direction for me to approach the Scottish Information Commissioner.


You have failed to address every one of these specific points therefore you have not undertaken a full review at all. 




2.  ‘I am satisfied that Ms Brodie has given you as full information as possible in relation to your request, and there is nothing further that I can add to that. Indeed, Ms Brodie has endeavoured to be as helpful as possible in terms of attempting to explain in quite a great deal of detail as to how the PCCS dealt with your original complaint case.’


How the PCCS dealt with my original complaint case is entirely irrelevant to my request for information under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.


In any event I originally submitted two police complaints for review by the PCCS, not one, and very many of the issues I raised in respect of these complaints have never been addressed, contrary to your angle.  


Most importantly however, you have completely failed to address my fundamental point about the PCCS misrepresenting as letters of complaint 82 of my letters to Strathclyde Police when in fact only 8 of these were letters of complaint and of those 2 were soon withdrawn in any event. You have done so in the full knowledge that this position was based on a pack of lies that was very damaging to my professional reputation.




3.  ‘You continue to dispute the number of complaint letters which you had sent to Strathclyde Police, and you refuse to acknowledge the explanation previously given. To this end, I am unable to comment any further.’


And you are unreasonably persisting in the falsehood that I wrote 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police, upon which supposedly a substantial amount of public money was wasted.  Why should I not dispute this pathetic fabrication?


And why should I acknowledge the paltry explanation provided by the PCCS for doing so? Does the PCCS routinely count or even just occasionally count every letter that a complainant has sent to the police and falsely promulgate that these were all letters of complaint? Undoubtedly the PCCS’s explanation provided on this point under the terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 is utter nonsense.


This is an issue that can easily be settled with reference to the 82 letters in question. I have copies and so do you. The explanation provided by the PCCS that this number of letters of complaint was computed by counting the letters that I had sent to Strathclyde Police is erroneous and unacceptable for the rather obvious reason explained in the following terms in my letter to the PCCS dated 26 March 2011:


‘But clearly, just counting the letters I had sent to Strathclyde Police would not provide the true number of letters of complaint I had sent to Strathclyde Police unless the letters that you counted were all letters of complaint. You know that they were not all letters of complaint. Less than a tenth were letters of complaint.’

Your statement about being unable to comment further is therefore just another blatant lie. Of course you could comment further. You could be honest and admit that this calculation of the number of letters of complaint I had supposedly sent to Strathclyde Police was simply very wrong.


The intransigence displayed by everyone involved in perpetrating this falsehood puts the matter well beyond the realms of inadvertent mistakes. It appears to be a deliberate policy decision by the Commissioner and his cronies, which is absolutely disgraceful. All the persons who have conspired to concoct and persist in this calumnious fabrication deserve to be sacked for gross misconduct.    




4.  ‘It is my view that the Commissioner and his staff have strived to respond to various comments, complaints, data protection subject access requests and freedom of information requests which you have submitted, but which ultimately do not satisfy you as they do not provide the particular answer that you are looking for.’


Your reference to ‘various comments, complaints and data protection subject access requests’ is entirely irrelevant in the context of responding to my request for a review of the PCCS’s response to this FOI request. Anyway the Commissioner and his staff have persisted in very many other lies about me and about the matters that were under review in addition to the 82 letters of complaint lie. The Commissioner and his staff have not striven to respond to my valid concerns at all. The vast majority of my concerns have actually been completely ignored.


Since you have taken it upon yourself to raise these matters, thereby giving me your unashamedly biased and unjustified view, I will provide a few comments of my own.


Firstly, your assertion that I should effectively just accept the PCCS’s despicable lies and disregard my rights to accuracy in personal information reveals your own perverse character. You plainly have no regard whatsoever for truth or justice and no intention to provide a reliable, honest service upon which the general public can properly rely.   


Secondly, your portrayal of me as an insatiable fanatic has no reasonable basis that accords with the facts as truly stated. I have a legal right to reputation and I insist upon protecting it whether or not that meets with your approval. I am a qualified accountant whose professional reputation has been roundly destroyed without justification by a succession of highly paid crooks and liars, now including you.


Thirdly, would the particular answer that you think I am looking for be, by any chance, an admission by the PCCS that I did not sent 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police after all? That admission would appear to be anathema to you, one ‘helpful’ step too far. In reality the PCCS has done absolutely nothing to help me and has repeatedly lied about me and my 2 complaints submitted for review.


A reasonable suspicion could arise in the mind of an independent observer that the PCCS is afraid to admit this big lie because that could lead to the exposure of the long  string of other significant lies that would render your whole sorry organisation totally discredited in the view of the general public. Of course that is what the PCCS fully deserves and what it inevitably has coming to it in the fullness of time.


In particular, the Commissioner appears to have developed and presided over a fundamentally dishonest corporate culture that has corrupted all the staff under his direction. This is nothing short of scandalous and appalling.  


Why should public money continue to be wasted on funding such unexpurgated drivel from the PCCS as has been spewed out in response to my requests for reviews of how Strathclyde Police handled only 2 formal complaints? Information is already in the public domain showing that I have yet to encounter an honest person in your organisation. You should not feel in any way isolated in your crookedness as an employee of the PCCS.


In due course I intend following up on all the PCCS’s outrageous and damaging falsehoods with appropriate actions.

Separately, since you have put defamatory statements to me in writing knowing that they were false statements, or recklessly not caring whether the statements were true or false, you have acted maliciously.

Any defence of qualified privilege in a defamation action against you personally would therefore be nullified.

According to Kenneth McK Norrie’s book, Defamation and Related Actions in Scots Law, Butterworths, (1995), at page 74:

‘An individual is liable for his or her own delicts, committed either personally or through the medium of another. To instruct one’s employee to defame another is to commit the wrong oneself (though the employee will be personally liable too). If more than one person joins in the defamation each is personally liable for the whole loss to the pursuer, for, notwithstanding that the defamation is committed by more than one person, liability is individual and not joint and several.’ 

In these circumstances I have copied this letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and to Mr Bob Doris MSP.

This is clearly a matter of public interest that would tend to undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice, justice not having been seen to be done.

This letter has therefore been put into the public domain as is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

Yours sincerely,

                               Eddie Cairns.








Mr E Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street


15 October 2010



Mr John McNeill

Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland


PO Box 26300




Dear Mr McNeill,

I refer to your letter dated 12 October 2010.

In that letter the following statements give rise to grave concern:

‘I have considered your complaint against Mr Todd and do not believe it to have any substance. In my view, Mr Todd’s letter to you was wholly appropriate in the circumstances.’

These significant statements indicate that you have no integrity whatsoever and no genuine interest in truth or justice.

As a former member of the Scottish Human Rights Commission you will of course have been fully aware of my right to an impartial and independent tribunal in the determination of my civil rights but you have defiantly acted contrary to what was lawfully required. Such blatant disregard for the rule of law is completely unacceptable and indeed an utter disgrace.

Clearly you were not sufficiently impartial and independent in the circumstances to consider this complaint at all and your inappropriate involvement simply reveals you to be a hypocrite and an impediment to justice.

Your intervention is a deliberate breach of my rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

In these circumstances your complete failure to address the specific points of my complaint and to provide reasons that are valid in law and that accord with the true facts serves to increase the reasonable suspicion of impropriety that could arise in the mind of an independent observer. That failure adds to the extent of your non-compliance with the basic legal requirement for fair treatment. You are apparently so unreasonably biased against me and so determined to stifle my rights in order to cover for your own failures that you now appear to be reckless and irresponsible. The consequences of that misconduct are inevitable. In time all crooks are found out.

Given the substantial objections that I swiftly detailed to you in response to your defective and largely fictitious report, your stubborn refusal to correct any inaccuracies confirms you to be a dishonest, complacent and arrogant person.


In particular, your calumnious fabrication that I had sent 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police, which supposedly resulted in substantial public resources being wasted, could reasonably be regarded as a despicable lie.


In reality, Strathclyde Police generally disregarded my letters entirely, 74 of which had absolutely nothing to do with police complaints in any event.


The vast majority of my letters simply presented information relevant to allegations of criminality in accordance with advice I had been given from a solicitor, the National Audit Office, Audit Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to give that information to the police.


To be falsely accused of having sent those letters as police complaints is absolutely outrageous.


You know that I only sent 8 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police. You expanded these 8 letters of complaint to 12 ‘heads of complaint’ during your lengthy deliberations.


According to your report 2 of these were withdrawn by me, another 1 was regarded as withdrawn by you, another 1 was considered by you to be a matter for the Information Commissioner, another 1 was regarded by you as a reiteration of an earlier complaint and Strathclyde Police failed to respond to 2 of the others.


That leaves a very few complaints that Strathclyde Police actually received and responded to, 5 rather than 82 according to the details in the body of your report, which is a very different picture from that painted by your summary, your recommendation and your comments to the press in which you roundly disparaged me, with no justification that accorded with the true facts, as detailed below:

The Scotsman     13 September 2010

‘......... complaints commissioner John McNeil ........... also said that, because of the "substantial amount of resources" police had spent dealing with him, they should no longer consider or respond to his complaints. Mr McNeil said: "I did not make this recommendation lightly. As a former human rights commissioner, I am, perhaps more than most, an ardent supporter of protecting the rights of individuals. However, it was time to draw a line.’’

"Substantial resources had been directed towards trying to understand and resolve the various complaints over an extended period of time.’’

"Everyone has the right to have a complaint considered, but I am also mindful that there will be occasions where resolution will not be possible, no matter how long the correspondence continues. This was one such occasion."

The Herald     13 September 2010

“A substantial amount of resources has been expended by Strathclyde Police in dealing with the above complaints, which in the vast majority of cases have been dealt with reasonably. In the particular circumstances of this complaint, the Commissioner recommends that Strathclyde Police no longer considers or responds to any complaint made by the applicant which is directly related to those listed in this report.’’

“The Commissioner does not make this recommendation lightly, but for the reasons stated considers it necessary to do so.”

However, ‘the reasons stated’ were simply a pack of lies.

At the heart of Strathclyde Police’s desperate attempt to cover up for their failure to investigate the original fraud allegations was their destruction of their file.

You generously absolved Strathclyde Police of any wrongdoing in the destruction of that file, falsely pretending that it was ‘in accordance with Strathclyde Police’s document retention policy’.

But evidence available to you showed that the original police report was still in existence in 1999.

Since the police file had relevance to live civil actions in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, since the police file had relevance to criminal reviews carried out during 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007, since the police file had relevance to formal police complaints raised in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008, since the police file had relevance for requests to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for clarifications in 2006, 2007 and 2008, since the police file had relevance to formal complaints to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and since the police file had relevance to your own review during 2008, 2009 and 2010, its destruction during any of these procedures was in fact unlawful, clearly in breach of any document retention policy and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

When was that file destroyed?

In any event you knew that the officer in charge of the original police investigation, DS William Watters, had copied the police report to the Scottish Office and later to solicitors Maclay Murray and Spens.

You also knew that I had obtained a copy in 2003 and had immediately submitted it to Strathclyde Police along with several items of documentary evidence highlighting the report’s many serious failures. 

The copy that I obtained from the Scottish Office had been sent by DS Watters to the Scottish Office along with a compliments slip containing the words ‘With the Compliments of the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police’, signed ‘W. Watters D/S Fraud Squad’.

Consequently, your assertions that ‘any investigation into the independence of the investigating officers would have been hampered by the destruction of the police file’ and that ’any enquiries conducted in relation to this complaint would not have been likely to yield reliable evidence’ are simply disingenuous and do not accord with the true facts. 

Why did you completely disregard the existence of this copy of the police report and all the evidence I submitted exposing its inadequacies?

Do you really think you will get away with this shameful episode? The public do not tolerate crooks and liars for long when they have been exposed.

Consequently, in due course the general public will perceive that you are unfit for your present position, or indeed for any position requiring a modicum of integrity, and will take appropriate action to get rid of you.

How many other complainants’ reputations have you destroyed with your pathetic lies?

And why should taxpayers go on subsidising the puerile nonsense that you produce at great expense?

In view of the very serious nature of the above and its relevance to wider issues in this case I have copied this letter to Strathclyde Police, to Scottish Enterprise, to the Scottish Government’s Ms Stella Manzie, Director General Justice and Communities, to Audit Scotland, to Mr Bob Doris MSP and to the Crown Office.

This is clearly a matter of public interest that would tend to undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice, justice not having been seen to be done.

This letter has therefore been put into the public domain as is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

Yours sincerely,

                              Eddie Cairns.