Mr Eddie Cairns
72 Hillhouse Street
GLASGOW G21 4HP
9 February 2017
Mr or Ms Ilya Zharov
Head of Reviews & Policy
The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Hamilton Business Park
Hamilton ML3 0QA
Dear Mr or Ms Ilya Zharov,
I refer to your letter dated 8 February 2017.
Your letter is reproduced below and I have added my comments as footnotes.
I would have expected a response of much higher quality from you. Having immediately read through your letter I was dismayed at the rather egregious errors and faulty reasoning therein.
All my difficulties flowed from my objection to blatant fraud and theft of public money that I encountered when working as an accountant in a Scottish Enterprise company in 1993. I expressed my disagreement verbally and later in an email dated 17 August 1993.
The email was addressed to my two supervisors, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell, and stated the following, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
‘For the record, as I said to you both today, I am not comfortable with your instruction to exclude from Enterprise Ayrshire’s balance sheet funds received from the EC.’
‘Your comment that the management accounts do not matter so much, being produced only for internal use, seems to underplay the potentially serious consequences of circulating figures that are incorrect.’
‘I stated to you both that I know this aspect of Scottish Enterprise’s finances is under investigation by the National Audit Office therefore you must accept my concern as genuine.’
‘I have been advised that such omissions from management accounts are in breach of the Institute’s ethical guidelines.’
In 1993 and 1994 two MPs and my professional body the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) wrote to government ministers on my behalf, including the Secretary of State for Scotland.
CIMA wrote that I had acted entirely correctly and completely in accordance with accounting ethical guidelines in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
‘Mr Cairns is a qualified management accountant and a member of this Institute, and we thought it might be helpful if the Institute clearly set out its position in this matter to you in the event of the case being re-opened.’
‘The Institute believes that the action taken by Mr Cairns in reporting to his superiors the apparent discrepancy of £187,069 in the main account of Ayrshire Enterprise was entirely correct, and that in doing so he was acting completely in accordance with the Ethical Guidelines of this Institute.’
The MPs, Lord Hogg and the Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin, requested a full investigation.
Norman Hogg MP confirmed in a letter to me:
‘Thank you for your letters of 19 August and 21 August concerning Enterprise Ayrshire. I have now written to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking that the matters you raise be fully investigated and shall write to you again when I have something to report.’
His letter to the Secretary of State stated:
‘My constituent Eddie Cairns ......... has written two letters to me concerning matters he raised with Enterprise Ayrshire while he was in their employment.’
‘I am satisfied that these matters warrant investigation by your Department and I should be grateful if this could be undertaken as soon as possible.’
‘I look forward to your reply in due course.’
About a year later, after I had moved to a different constituency, my new MP Michael Martin’s letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland stated:
‘Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Mr Eddie Cairns regarding his dismissal from Enterprise Ayrshire.’
‘It would appear to me that Mr Cairns was punished for acting in a very honest and professional manner’.
‘I am at a loss to understand why the sum of £187,069 was omitted from the accounts of this public body for so long’
‘I would be obliged if this matter could be fully investigated’.
Scottish Enterprise directors to this day deny any wrongdoing and continue to conceal material evidence, more recently in responses to MSPs who have written to Scottish Enterprise with serious concerns about this case.
The overall impression conveyed by your response is an inordinate disdain for me. You appear to have allowed that prejudice to interfere with your judgment to the extent that you have produced a worthless concoction designed to disparage me. Your stated views do not accord with the evidence and bear little resemblance to the truth.
There are several direct falsehoods in your letter that are easily shown to be false with reference to the documentary evidence available to you. There are also several statements that can easily be shown not to be the whole truth. You have knowingly concealed material evidence, a very serious matter.
My objections are detailed below in the footnotes.
I will wait for a reasonable time to see if you want to review any of your response before I refer the matter to the Information Commissioner in the first instance.
Separately, I may raise a formal complaint against you for dishonesty in due course if you do not retract your deliberate falsehoods about me.
Police Investigations & Review Commissioner
Hamilton House, Hamilton Business Park, Caird Park, Hamilton ML3 0QA
Telephone: 01698 542900 e: email@example.com
Mr Edward Cairns
72 Hillhouse Street
8 February 2017
Dear Mr Cairns
DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 – SECTION 10 NOTICE – RESPONSE
I refer to the above and your correspondence dated 30th January 2017.
I note that you formally submitted to this office a Section 10 Notice in terms of the above stated Act. You also provided us with a copy of Superintendent John Laing’s response to a similar request, dated 18th January 2017, and a copy of the letter you wrote to the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) on 26th August 2016 in similar terms.
In his correspondence, Superintendent Laing directed you to our office in relation to points 1, 2,3,4,5 and 6, which you now request that we consider in terms of your Section 10 Notice. All of these points have been identified by Superintendent Laing as extracts from the letter dated 21st April 2016 to you from the SPA’s Stuart Milne in which he responds to a complaint made previously by you to the SPA.
In order to give you a full explanation for my decision, I would like to draw your attention to certain aspects in relation to the information you are seeking to correct. Multiple references have been made by Superintendent Laing in relation to a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) report issued by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland (PCCS – now the PIRC) in August 2010.
As you are aware, you asked PCCS to review how Strathclyde Police had handled your complaints about what you perceived to be an incomplete investigation into allegations you made back in 1993.  In order to do that, PCCS had to request all relevant paperwork from Strathclyde Police. That information was thereafter carefully assessed before a CHR report was published stating whether, in the Commissioner’s view, the handling of your complaint was to a reasonable standard. 
The specific CHR report in question, PCCS/00448/08, was published in August 2010. In line with the PIRC’s document retention policy, all paper and electronic records in respect of that case have now been destroyed. The anonymised version of the report is no longer available on the PIRC’s website. The only electronic copy of that report is retained on PIRC’s internal archive. 
“You initially contacted Strathclyde Police in 1993 to report allegations of fraudulent accountancy practices by employees within Scottish Enterprise. These allegations were investigated at the time and a report was sent to the Procurator Fiscal who determined that no proceedings would be taken, you then repeated your allegations of fraud and made criminal allegations against the police officer who investigated the matter. These allegations were also considered by the Procurator Fiscal and the Area Procurator Fiscal on more than one occasion resulting in no proceedings being taken in relation to the alleged fraud or the actions of any police officer.”
The original source of this extract is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April 2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you. This extract is very similar in its terms to the information contained within the first paragraph of the “Background” section of the CHR report issued by PCCS in August 2010 (PCCS/00448/08) however it is not identical. The original source of this information is the paperwork provided by Strathclyde Police to PCCS during the CHR process.  As previously stated, all papers and electronic records in relation to that process have now been destroyed. Whilst you remain of the view that the initial investigation was incomplete  , there is nothing in the documentation provided to suggest that the information is factually inaccurate. 
“As a result of your continued attempts to take legal action against Strathclyde Police you were declared a “vexatious litigant” under the terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898”.
The original source of this extract is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April 2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you. This extract is very similar in its terms to the information contained within the second paragraph of the “Background” section of the CHR report issued by PCCS in August 2010 (PCCS/00448/08) however it is not identical. The original source of this information is the paperwork provided by Strathclyde Police to PCCS during the CHR process. As previously stated, all papers and electronic records in relation to that process have now been destroyed. However, it is a matter of fact that you made more than one attempt to raise legal proceedings against Strathclyde Police.  It is also a matter of fact that Strathclyde Police successfully raised an action against you in terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898.  Accordingly, the information referred to is factually correct. 
“Between 2001 to 2009 you had written some 82 letters to Strathclyde Police in which you made both criminal and non-criminal complaints about police”.
The original source of this extract is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April 2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you. This extract is very similar in its terms to the information contained within fourth paragraph of the “Background” section of the CHR report issued by PCCS in August 2010 (PCCS/00448/08) however it is not identical. The original source of this information is the paperwork provided by Strathclyde Police to PCCS during the CHR process. As previously stated, all papers and electronic records in relation to that process have now been destroyed. It is not in dispute that you wrote 82 letters. However, I
note that you are disputing that they were all letters of complaint. Your communication with Strathclyde Police was in relation to allegations you made back in 1993, and the investigation (or lack of it) into those allegations. In addition you made further allegations against police officers involved in the investigation. You also wrote to Strathclyde Police offering what you perceived to be additional evidence as, in your view, the police did not investigate your allegations thoroughly. I fully accept that only 8 of those letters were recorded formally as complaints about police. The extract above does not state that you have made 82 separate complaints. 
The definition of a complaint can be summarised as a statement expressing dissatisfaction about an act or omission. It is accurate to say that all of your correspondence stems from your dissatisfaction with how the police dealt with allegations you made in 1993.  Accordingly, I do not consider the information contained in our report as inaccurate. 
In addition, since the publishing of our CHR report in August 2010, you have continued to write to Strathclyde Police, now Police Scotland, and made a number of new allegations and complaints.  Accordingly, the up-to-date number of letters sent by you to Police Scotland is significantly higher.  On this basis, it is unclear why you consider that the information in our CHR report, which is no longer readily accessible to the public, is causing you substantial unwarranted damage or distress. 
“The fact that the PCCS made a single recommendation that Strathclyde Police no longer consider or respond to any complaint raised by you that is directly related to your complaint “that Strathclyde Police did not conduct an independent investigation into allegations of fraud”, it was wholly appropriate that ACC Nicolson did not contact you”.
“While you remain personally dissatisfied with the manner in which your letter was handled, it is not possible to infer misconduct allegations on the part of ACC Nicolson who was following the recommendations of the PCCS”.
“The reason why ACC Nicolson did not respond was because Strathclyde Police had received the PCCS recommendation that they need not respond to you”.
I intend to deal with points 4, 5, and 6 together as they are all direct quotes from correspondence sent to you by the SPA.
The original source of these extracts is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April 2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you. This letter was a response to your complaint to the SPA. You thereafter asked the PIRC to review the handling of that complaint. Accordingly, this letter came to our attention at your request. This part of Mr Milne’s letter was copied into our CHR report PIRC/00111/16 within the “SPA Handling of Complaint” section for reference purpose only. In so far as the recommendation made by PCCS is concerned, the extract in question is factually correct.  Thereafter Mr Milne expressed his assessment on whether ACC Nicolson’s actions (not responding to your correspondence) were indeed justified in his opinion. There is nothing in this extract that I can identify as factually incorrect and, in any event, you will appreciate that we cannot correct the letter sent to you by Mr Milne. 
To conclude, points 1, 2 and 3 are considered reliable and factually correct information. In relation to points 4, 5 and 6 – these are extracts from the letter sent to you by the SPA in response to your complaint to the SPA.  That letter formed the basis of your application to the PIRC for a CHR and was quoted in our CHR report for reference only. In so far as quotes from that letter which refer to the recommendation made by PCCS back in August 2010, I consider that there are no factual inaccuracies. 
If you are not satisfied in relation to the way that the PIRC has dealt with your Section 10 Notice, you may contact the Information Commissioner’s Office using the details provided below.
Head of Reviews & Policy
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
0303 123 1113 (local rate) or 01625 545 745 (national rate)
 No I did not. I asked the PCCS to review two letters sent to me by Strathclyde Police, one from DCS Ruaraidh Nicolson dated 19 September 2008 and one from DI Graham Cowley dated 26 March 2010 both of which contained several false statements about the investigation in 1993 and subsequent reviews.
 Just how carefully the PCCS assessed the relevant paperwork is revealed with reference to the blatant falsehood upon which the recommendation to the police was based, namely that I had supposedly written 82 letters of complaint to the police.
I wrote several letters to the PCCS exposing the many lies contained in that disgracefully inept report that can still be confirmed as lies with reference to relevant documentary evidence.
 So you do indeed have a copy of that report and therefore you could compare its contents with the evidence I provided exposing its many defects. Why have you not done that?
 I agree with this but the police do not. The police have stated, as you know, that this information originated in the PCCS.
Have you written to the police insisting upon their proper addressing of the alleged inaccurate information? If not, why not? The PIRC are meant to ensure proper policing. That would include ensuring that the police comply with the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.
If you need a complaint to kick start that, I hereby formally complain about this failure by the police.
 I have never expressed the view that the initial investigation was incomplete. I plainly stated that the police carried out no investigation at all and I provided a copy of the Scottish Enterprise report on their investigation along with an attached compliments slip signed by DS Watters the police officer supposedly in charge of the investigation showing that he had simply endorsed Scottish Enterprise’s own manifestly defective report.
You have the proofs I provided showing that in response to overwhelming evidence confirming the operation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in 1993 involving Scottish Enterprise and the police, which evidence was produced by the government in February 2003 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 and was immediately passed on to the police, the police disgracefully and unlawfully took swift action in July 2003 to have me categorised as a vexatious litigant.
Contrary to your unconvincing and indeed fake argument that they did this because of my ‘continued attempts to take legal action against Strathclyde Police’ the police were in reality acting to cover up their own criminal acts in 1993.
Why did the Lord Advocate write to Scottish Enterprise’s solicitors informing them that action was being taken against me as a matter of urgency to have me categorised as a vexatious litigant? How does that fact fit with your pretence about the police taking that action in response to my supposed ‘continued attempts to take legal action against the police’? Indeed it does not fit because your angle is a blatant falsehood.
I provided for the police a copy of that letter to Scottish Enterprise’s solicitors which amounted to very serious evidence of corruption and of criminal interference with ongoing civil actions but the police, surprise surprise, completely ignored it and so did the PCCS.
At that time the police were supposedly carrying out a review of the new evidence but clearly acted corruptly to nullify my legal rights before carrying out that review which was abruptly terminated in 2005 before further important evidence that the police had arranged to pick up from me was in fact picked up although I had telephoned and written to remind the police of that. The police never did collect that evidence.
The supporting evidence that I provided to you included a copy of the letter sent by Ms Claire Cullen at the Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Executive to solicitors Anderson Fyfe who were at that time acting for Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire, Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise director Mr Andrew Downie, my opponents in separate live civil actions and, simultaneously, suspects in the review of the criminal investigation based upon the same allegations relating to the £187,069 fraud.
The text of that letter, dated 18 August 2004, is reproduced below:
‘PETITION UNDER SECTION 1 OF THE VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1898’
‘I refer to previous correspondence, and in particular to my colleague’s letter to you dated 7 July 2004.’
‘The Lord Advocate has now instructed that the Petition be presented in terms of section 1 of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898. Counsel has been instructed and has been asked to deal with this Petition promptly.’
‘Claire F Cullen’
A copy is attached again.
The live civil actions and the criminal investigation were not concluded until several months later, in 2005.
This shows that during the time that he was meant to be independently directing a criminal investigation by Strathclyde Police into allegations of fraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice the Lord Advocate was in reality, and in the full knowledge of the Scottish Government, secretly colluding with the suspects to nullify my related civil claims against them.
Outrageously, the suspects were being informed by the Scottish Government that the Lord Advocate was taking urgent action against me, the whistleblower at the centre of the allegations of criminality, even before the criminal investigation had been concluded and before important evidence that the police had undertaken in writing to collect from me had in fact been collected for consideration. That evidence was actually never collected by the police, providing additional grounds for grave concern about the conduct of the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Government.
The letter proves that the Lord Advocate was not acting independently at all, nor was he acting in the public interest or in the interests of justice, and that individuals in the Scottish Government were indeed involved in the alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The letter also reveals that the Scottish Government had already been corresponding with the solicitors acting for my opponents for some time, since it refers to previous correspondence on the matter. The Lord Advocate’s supposed independent direction of the police and prosecutors had actually been biased against me from an early stage, contrary to the most fundamental requirements of justice, completely at odds with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, and with the collusion of named individuals acting for the Scottish Government, which is absolutely disgraceful.
This matter will inevitably have to be addressed properly in due course and those who persist in trying to cover for the corrupt conduct of their colleagues will get what they deserve, as has been shown to be the case in numerous other instances of corruption. The public are very unforgiving towards those who effectively condone the theft of a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money.
 Contrary to your statement that there is nothing in the documentation provided to suggest that the information is factually inaccurate I actually provided overwhelming documentary evidence proving that this section contains several inaccurate statements about this case and about me.
What did Scottish Enterprise’s solicitors have to do with my supposed continued attempts to take legal action against Strathclyde Police?
Why have the PCCS, and now you personally, deliberately disregarded this crucial evidence and misrepresented the facts on this point?
 ‘More than one attempt’, meaning two attempts here, does not equate to ‘continued attempts’. Your angle here is frankly pitiful.
Regardless of any number of alleged attempts in that regard the available evidence proves that my categorisation as a vexatious litigant was in fact directly targeted to interfere with my claims against Scottish Enterprise.
 You have culpably omitted to mention that Strathclyde Police were supposed to have been conducting a criminal review under the direction of the Lord Advocate at the time the Lord Advocate raised this petition and contacted the agents for my opponents in related civil actions.
This is particularly inexcusable since you know that external scrutiny by the Faculty of Advocates and the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales held that I have grounds for a formal complaint against the Lord Advocate for unlawfully interfering in live civil actions and misdirecting the police.
 No it is not factually correct. It is instead a disgraceful manifestation of the police’s inordinate and corrupt efforts to cover up their participation in a conspiracy with other public authorities to pervert the course of justice in this case.
You are already well aware of the documentary evidence supporting my allegations about such failures by the police over a prolonged period since you personally referred my allegations and proofs to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in November 2016.
 But it does falsely state that I had written some 82 letters to Strathclyde Police in which I made both criminal and non-criminal complaints about police.
In fact the vast majority of those letters were covering letters accompanying evidence that I had obtained from several sources under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 and that I was justifiably passing on to the police to assist them in their enquiries.
 No it most certainly is not accurate to say that all of my correspondence stems from my dissatisfaction with how the police dealt with allegations I made in 1993. I formally call upon you to retract that damaging falsehood about me.
As can be verified with reference to the 82 letters in question, which I have copies of, the vast majority were simply covering letters providing additional proofs relating to this case as I obtained them from various sources. For example, several were covering letters accompanying new proofs I obtained from Audit Scotland in 2009 under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.
In that regard, Audit Scotland’s disclosures to me in 2009 show that Audit Scotland recognised years ago that official responses from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office in this case had been ‘disingenuous’.
Documents disclosed by Audit Scotland included the following statements in a document headed Notes from review of papers submitted by E Cairns, prepared by Audit Scotland’s Mr Jim Martin, dated 20 August 2004 and reproduced here in italics for convenience:
Mr Cairns is correct in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in the EA June Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been omitted from the July accounts but for his actions ....................... Speculation on why the monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is academic at this stage but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to exclude them from the July accounts.
Responses to Mr Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Office Ministers dismiss the omission of the receipts as a technical accounting matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues here ................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts as was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was allegedly instructed to exclude them.
.............. If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get drawn in.
Of course you already know all this because I provided this evidence to you in recent months and it had been provided to the PCCS previously, again to no avail.
 Only by applying the warped and dishonest reasoning disgracefully displayed by you in this point could anyone conclude that the information contained in your report on this point is not inaccurate.
I did not write 82 letters expressing dissatisfaction with the police. Your insulting lie about me on this point is outrageous.
 A number of allegations and complaints? How many? Another 82? In fact I have raised only a very few complaints against the police since 2010 and every one has been valid but rejected because of the PIRC’s defective recommendation that the police should ignore me.
Of course, again, you already know this so how many complaints from me have been responded to by the police. I happen to have the exact figure and so do you. NONE.
Consequently, your derogatory insinuations about me are completely unfounded and reprehensible.
Any defence of qualified privilege that you may present in defence of a defamation action would easily be countered because of the malice I could prove you to have acted upon by knowingly asserting damaging falsehoods about me.
Twice in recent years I have been granted authority by the Court of Session to raise actions despite the vexatious actions order.
You ought to retract those damaging falsehoods about me which the evidence available to you shows to be false.
 So now you are quietly dropping the PIRC falsehood that the 82 letters were letters of complaint? Now you are suggesting that just writing a number of letters over a period of several years is unacceptable?
I challenge you to identify any one of my letters to the police that was unjustified.
In reality the number of letters sent over many years reflects the multitude of proofs I have obtained supporting my position and exposing the police’s inadequate performance as disgraceful and indeed criminal.
 You appear to have a very short and extremely selective memory. Only a few months ago the unjustified recommendation to the police based upon this lie about me supposedly having written 82 letters of complaint to the police was applied to nullify my valid complaint about misconduct by ACC Nicolson that the PIRC has already held not to have been reasonably handled by the SPA.
 No it is not factually correct.
In fact you had already been notified of the far more probable reason for ACC Nicolson’s refusal to carry out the Chief Constable’s direction to contact me, namely in order to avoid any consideration of his own previous dishonest involvement in this case which he knows would not stand up to any scrutiny.
The PIRC relatively recently received several relevant proofs of that from me which you appear to want to forget about.
 But you can correct the PIRC’s defective recommendation to the police which is what ACC Nicolson and Mr Stuart Milne relied upon to ignore my competent complaints.
 No they are most certainly not reliable and factually correct information as already explained above.
Of course you already know this because of the PIRC’s prior involvement in this case and because you have received multiple proofs from me exposing your reasoning here as dishonest.
To restore some perspective, this is an important case that ought to be adequately investigated and tested for truth and accuracy in accordance with the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. Your false and derogatory comments about me and about this case confirm the crassness of your pretence that it is unclear why I consider that the information in question is causing me substantial unwarranted damage or distress.
You have in fact amply demonstrated clearly in your letter why I consider that the information in question is causing me substantial unwarranted damage or distress.
In summary, the figures in the monthly management accounts at Enterprise Ayrshire were the basis for obtaining public money. Evidence available confirms that I had been instructed to commit a criminal act in Enterprise Ayrshire, treated with open hostility by the other members of staff who had already agreed to enter into the conspiracy, summarily dismissed before any investigation by Scottish Enterprise had taken place, stonewalled thereafter and unjustifiably publicly disparaged, rendering me unemployable in my profession.
Perusal of the original Scottish Enterprise report in conjunction with other available evidence confirms that material evidence was concealed by employees of Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise in the context of assisting the police enquiry in this case, a very serious matter.
The employees involved included Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell of Enterprise Ayrshire and Mr Tom Woodbridge and Ms Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise.
Material evidence that was concealed included the following:
(a) Any evidence or witness statement from me.
The investigating accountant made no contact with me whatsoever and disregarded all the documentary evidence in support of my allegations that was available on the premises of Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise.
(b) My witness statements to Detective Sergeant William Watters on 7 September 1993.
Since the Scottish Enterprise report was dated 20 August 1993 the police ought to have ensured that the report was updated.
(c) My letter to Detective Superintendent Gordon Ferrie, dated 19 August 1993, and the documents I enclosed with that letter ‘showing the omission of a receipt from the EC of £187,069 in the balance sheet of Enterprise Ayrshire’.
(d) My email dated 17 August 1993 to my supervisors in Enterprise Ayrshire, Mr Gary Tracey and Ms Janie Maxwell.
(e) Evidence of my regular monthly reconciliations to the financial ledger which were held in the Enterprise Ayrshire Excel files at my workstation, in particular the reconciliation which had been forwarded to Mr Gary Tracey by email showing the discrepancy in the first accounting month in which it had arisen, June 1993. The Scottish Enterprise report falsely stated that there was no evidence that this reconciliation had been carried out.
Mr Tom Woodbridge, Scottish Enterprise Head of Finance, and Enterprise Ayrshire employees Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracy and Ms Janie Maxwell knew that I had produced reconciliations showing the £187,069 to have been omitted from the balance sheet in the June 1993 and July 1993 accounts that had been presented to me for reconciliation.
(f) Names of all the finance workers involved in the financial irregularities and witness statements from them. These ought to have included Mr Tom Woodbridge, Mr Andrew Downie, Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Ms Alison Norton, Ms Valery Spence and myself.
(g) A plausible explanation for the irregularities.
The money had been received in June 1993 and should have been entered into the accounts in that month but had not been entered until 18 August 1993.
(h) My allegation that I had been incited by Mr Gary Tracey to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts.
My allegation was supported by the note blocking the journal entry and the actions of finance workers who had accepted the invitation to falsify the accounts.
(i) The fact that one of the bank accounts through which the £187,000 in question was transferred was not in the name of Enterprise Ayrshire, contrary to what was falsely stated in the Scottish Enterprise report, but was in the name of Mr Gary Tracey. This is the person that the evidence shows had instructed the financial irregularities and had thereby corrupted staff more junior to him.
(j) The fact that the bank account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey was not a high interest call account managed by the Royal Bank of Scotland on EA’s behalf, contrary to what was falsely stated in the Scottish Enterprise report. Deposits into Mr Gary Tracey’s account did not mature at call. They matured one month and one day after the deposit had been made. The bank did not manage Mr Gary Tracey’s account.
(k) My allegation that I had been questioning the financial irregularities in my reconciliation work and had objected in writing to the instruction to comply.
(l) My allegation that I had approached Mr Tom Woodbridge, Scottish Enterprise Head of Finance, for help when I had been immediately threatened with dismissal by my one of my supervisors, Ms Janie Maxwell, when she read my email recording my objections to the financial irregularities but that Mr Woodbridge had declined to give me any support.
(m) The evidence showing that the £187,000 had been re-deposited in a high interest bank account on 3 August 1993, maturing not at call but on 4 September 1993, in the name of Mr Gary Tracey while still omitted from the company’s financial ledger whereas it ought to have been transferred to Scottish Enterprise in the month following receipt. This indicated that the senior finance staff had no intention of handling this money in accordance with correct procedure until I raised my objection in writing on 17 August 1993.
(n) My allegation that I had been instructed to overlook in my account reconciliation work the deliberate omission from the accounts of a cash grant for £187,069 received on 25 June 1993 by electronic transfer from the European Regional Development Fund.
My allegation was supported by my email to my supervisors dated 17 August 1993.
(o) My allegation that the reason for the financial irregularities was to gain interest that would otherwise not be gained.
(p) Any recognition that in Scots law the definition of theft is taking control of an asset that does not belong to you without the owner’ s permission.
(q) Any recognition that fraud has been defined as ‘the bringing about of any practical result by false pretences.’ (Macdonald, 52)
In fact the SE report itself, although inadequate in several crucial respects, did nevertheless contain points that indicated fraudulent activity:
(a) It concluded that £187,069 that had been received on 25 June 1993 ought to have been entered into the accounts at that time but was not entered into the ledger until 18 August 1993.
(b) It recorded that there was a note including the words No journal required as per G. Tracey next to the entry for this money in the cash book. This indicated that the irregularity was instructed by Mr Tracey, not an oversight or a mistake.
(c) No plausible explanation was stated in the SE report to have been elicited from Mr Tracey or from anyone else.
(d) However, the note corroborated my witness statements and my email dated 17 August 1993 alleging that I had also been incited to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in respect of this cash.
I declined the invitation to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts and the immoderate responses and blatant dishonesty of more senior workers in Enterprise Ayrshire and Scottish Enterprise as revealed in the available evidence further corroborated my allegations of financial irregularities.
What did these managers have to hide? Why did they falsely pretend that there was no substance to my allegations? Why did they pretend that investigations by Scottish Enterprise and Strathclyde Police had found no wrongdoing when in fact they had found that £187,069 was missing from the accounts for exactly the period I had alleged while it was deposited in a high interest bearing bank account in the name of Mr Gary Tracey? Why was an immediate correction to the accounts made in the morning of 18 August 1993 within hours of my written objections to the irregularities and before any investigation had been carried out? Clearly, the managers already knew that the accounts had been falsified and needed to be corrected because effectively the game was up.
The PIRC already has copies of documentary evidence supporting these points.
Your paltry disapproval of my determined efforts to put matters right in these circumstances would tend to induce nausea. If you fundamentally disapprove of complaints against the police regardless of their justification, as the record shows in this case, are you sure you are in the right job?
 On the contrary according to the police this information originated in the PIRC.
My letter to the PIRC dated 30 January 2017 contained the following relevant section, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
Police Scotland responded in a letter dated 18 January 2017 directing me to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner in respect of six out of the seven inaccuracies listed. A scanned copy of that letter is attached.
You know that points 4, 5 and 6 were included in the police’s direction of my request to the PIRC. It would appear that you also have grounds for a complaint against the police if you reject the police’s stated view on these points. How does it feel?
 Yes there are factual inaccuracies as plainly identified above.
I am beginning to wonder if you are allowing your overt prejudice to cloud your judgment in this case.
Since these matters are of interest to the general public I have published this letter on the internet.