Monday, 17 April 2017

CROWN OFFICE STATEMENTS ABOUT SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE EXPOSED TO BE FALSE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

17 April 2017                 

 

 

Mr or Ms F Shand

Response and Information Unit

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

 

Your ref:    R013460

 

Dear Mr or Ms Shand,

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998

SECTION 10 NOTICE

I formally submit another Section 10 Notice under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 in respect of damaging inaccuracies about me held and processed by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, contained in disclosures attached to your letter to me dated 6 April 2017 which are reproduced and numbered below in italics for convenience with my explanatory comments following in normal type and which in addition expose as inaccurate all statements by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service pretending that my correspondence has been properly handled and that the Scottish Enterprise fraud case has been adequately investigated:

 

1.     While we do hold further documents and correspondence in relation to the complaints you have made, these documents contain the personal information of others and it is not possible to redact these documents in a manner which would allow them to be released, however I can advise that the personal information they contain in relation to you are your name, address and details of your complaints.

The recorded statements reproduced above are inaccurate and damaging towards me.   

I do not accept as valid your reason for withholding this information about me. Any names of other individuals could be redacted in such disclosures in the same way as for other documents.

In the circumstances, a reasonable suspicion of impropriety could arise in the mind of an independent observer, that information about me in relation to the alleged fraud in Scottish Enterprise is being withheld by you not for the reasons stated by you but in order to cover up wrongdoing by your colleagues.

If this is found to be the case you have beyond reasonable doubt entered into a conspiracy to conceal material evidence and pervert the course of justice in this case, a very serious matter.

Thereby you have caused me unwarranted and substantial damage and distress by concealing material evidence likely to be contained in the information you hold about me which I am legally entitled to have disclosed to me.    

 

2.     Sorry but why is this needed after my last report and CO instruction to terminate correspondence etc. I did that and we wrote and said no more letters would be responded to. nothing else I can say and I won’t be reading these as déjà vu coming on..

Can you forward   (redacted)  our final letter to EC. 

Clearly the person who wrote this had no intention of even reading my concerns about this case, never mind responding to them properly, and expressed unacceptable disdain towards me.

Since I had never received responses to my letters the decision to terminate correspondence had no legally valid basis. 

Consequently the recorded statements reproduced above are inaccurate and damaging towards me by giving a false and damaging negative impression of my conduct.   

 

3.     I understand  (redacted)  e-mailed you yesterday to explain that Mr Cairns is a persistent complainer. We have no letter of complaint as such just numerous letters in general from Mr Cairns. This was reported to CO (copy report attached) and an instruction was received saying that we were no longer to correspond with Mr Cairns.

How can I be regarded as a persistent complainer at that time when it is recorded that I had actually submitted no letter of complaint?

The recorded statements reproduced above are self-evidently inaccurate and damaging towards me.    

There was no reasonable basis for treating me as a persistent complainer and disregarding my correspondence.

I do not believe that I was in fact formally categorised as a persistent complainer at that time.

 

4.     This has a long history and he has complained about everyone a lot and ultimately the Ombudsman bounced him I think.   

(redacted)  would you mind if this went in your name after you’ve had a chance to consider? If in mine it would just fan flames I think.

The recorded statements reproduced above are inaccurate and damaging towards me, falsely portraying me as an unreasonable person.   

The reason this has a long history is that employees in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have point blank refused to address any of my serious concerns, not because of any unreasonable conduct on my part, contrary to the impression conveyed in the disclosures.

In fact I had not complained about everyone a lot and the Ombudsman simply decided not to investigate. I was not ‘bounced’.

Referring to me falsely as having complained about everyone a lot and of having been bounced by the Ombudsman are clearly derogatory.

In addition, this person is revealed to have acted deviously and evasively by asking someone else falsely to pretend to have written to me the letter in question. His or her frank admission that writing in his or her own name would just fan flames indicates that this person was obviously not sufficiently impartial to respond or that there was some other obvious reason for hiding the identity of the author. This is not the conduct of an honest person.   

Consequently these disclosures undermine the reliability and accuracy of any correspondence sent to me by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

 

5.     I wonder therefore if this correspondence (which is an attempt to go over the same ground by different means) could be better dealt with in someone else’s name? However, we struggle to find people who he hasn’t dealt with previously (and complained about). Could  (redacted) deal with it?  

The recorded statements reproduced above are inaccurate and damaging towards me, again falsely portraying me as an unreasonable person.   

In truth my correspondence was not going over the same ground. None of my concerns had been addressed at all. I formally call upon you to provide any response to me from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that addressed any of my concerns.

References to me and my concerns here are inaccurate, dismissive and disrespectful.

And this person’s statements give rise to further concerns about a lack of sufficient independence and impartiality to handle the matter.

 

6.     To see attached – let me know if you wish me to acknowledge as I am not sure where we are with Mr Cairns!    

The recorded statement reproduced above is inaccurate and damaging towards me.   

The true position was plainly recorded in the correspondence but this person appears not to have examined the existing correspondence with sufficient care to comprehend it and respond appropriately.

The alleged confusion was not because of any unreasonable conduct on my part, contrary to the impression conveyed in this inaccurate statement.

 

7.     Do you happen to have any papers up there for Eddie Cairns? I found a wee bundle in our cupboard and it is felt that it would be better if these were all kept together.  

The recorded statements reproduced above indicate that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s pretences about my correspondence having been properly dealt with have consistently been inaccurate and damaging towards me.   

This is another disgraceful indication that for years my case has not been taken seriously at all.

Undoubtedly, this document confirms that my case has been generally ignored and regarded more as a joke than as a serious concern about an injustice perpetrated by Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service employees conspiring to conceal material evidence and pervert the course of justice in the case of alleged fraud and theft of some £187,000 of taxpayers’ cash in a public agency, Scottish Enterprise. 

The disclosures reveal that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have never handled this case properly. Instead, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service employees appear to have regarded my efforts to obtain justice as merely futile and funny. The disclosures reveal that paperwork about my case was found in ‘a wee bundle’ in a cupboard. I want such outrageous failures by Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service employees to be properly investigated by persons who are sufficiently independent, impartial and professional as a matter of urgency.     

  

 

The damaging inaccuracies about me held and processed by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, contained in disclosures attached to your letter to me dated 6 April 2017 and which in addition expose as inaccurate all statements by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service pretending that my correspondence has been properly handled and that the Scottish Enterprise fraud case has been adequately investigated have caused me unwarranted and substantial damage and unwarranted and substantial distress, and are likely to cause me further unwarranted and substantial damage and unwarranted and substantial distress in future, by falsely pretending that my correspondence has been properly handled, by treating me as a persistent correspondent and a persistent complainer without reasonable justification, by culpably concealing and disregarding material evidence, by failing to investigate adequately the matters I raised and by falsely portraying me as an incompetent accountant, a false accuser, a time waster and someone who has repeatedly breached professional standards.

You have 21 days to respond to this Notice.

Since this case is a matter of very serious concern to the general public I have published this letter on the internet.

Yours sincerely,

                                   Eddie Cairns.

No comments: