Saturday, 15 April 2017

MORE INACCURACIES FROM THE SCOTTISH POLICE AUTHORITY IN THE SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE FRAUD CASE


Mr Eddie Cairns

72 Hillhouse Street

GLASGOW G21 4HP

15 April 2017

 

 

SPA Information Management

Scottish Police Authority

1 Pacific Quay

GLASGOW G51 1DZ

 

Reference DP 009-2016

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

NEW DPA SECTION 10 NOTICE

I refer to your letter dated 11 April 2017.

The following statement in your letter, reproduced here in italics for convenience, is inaccurate since it directly contradicts Police Scotland’s formal position on the point:

Police Scotland are correct in viewing the PCCS recommendation to Strathclyde Police as now vesting in Police Scotland.

In a Freedom of Information response to me dated 21 October 2016 Police Scotland notified me that Police Scotland does not hold the following requested information:

 

Please disclose any recorded information by Police Scotland indicating that a recommendation by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to Strathclyde Police should be applied to Police Scotland.

 

Therefore Police Scotland’s formal position is that they had no recorded basis for applying to Police Scotland a recommendation by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to Strathclyde Police.

Even if Police Scotland could lawfully have done so, the formally stated position is that they did not think that they had any recorded information indicating that a recommendation by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland to Strathclyde Police should be applied to Police Scotland.

 

The complete absence of any notification to me from ACC Nicolson or indeed from anyone in Police Scotland that the recommendation had been applied to nullify the Chief Constable’s direction, which had itself been formally notified to me, further confirms your statement quoted above as inaccurate.

The SPA is falsely pretending that Police Scotland, in the person of ACC Nicolson, did not ensure that I was contacted regardless of the Chief Constable’s direction for him to do so because of an application of the recommendation in question. I have already submitted evidence to the SPA proving that ACC Nicolson had an ulterior motive for not ensuring that I was contacted, which was in order to avoid any consideration of his previous conduct in the Scottish Enterprise fraud case because he knew that it would not stand up to any scrutiny.

The SPA has culpably disregarded that evidence entirely.

This inaccuracy about Police Scotland supposedly viewing the PCCS recommendation to Strathclyde Police as now vesting in Police Scotland originated in the SPA.

In your email dated 14 March 2017 you asked me to clarify exactly what I was disputing in respect of the following three points, which were communicated to me by the SPA on 21 April 2016:

 

Point 4

 

“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”.

 

Point 5

 

“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”.

 

Point 6

 

“The reason why ACC Nicolson did not respond was because Strathclyde Police had received the PCCS recommendation that they need not respond to you”.

 

The following statements in your letter dated 11 April 2017, reproduced here in italics for convenience, are also inaccurate:

As per our previous response, we are unable to amend or alter any of the information you are stating as inaccurate, as we are not the originators of the information in dispute. Should you wish to challenge this information, this would have to be directed to Police Scotland to investigate.

In fact the earlier inaccuracies quoted above and contained in my first DPA Section 10 Notice did indeed originate in the SPA.

In my letter dated 15 March 2017 I included the following important information on the matter of the recommendation by the PCCS:

 

‘At the time of the PCCS’s published report on this case in 2010 there was considerable media coverage of this point which greatly damaged my professional and personal reputation unjustifiably, as the following extracts from an article in the Herald on 13 September 2010, including my photograph, illustrate:’

 

‘‘Police told to ignore complainer’’


  • 10520102

‘‘Strathclyde Police has been advised to have no further dealings with a man who has bombarded the force with complaints against its officers for the past 17 years.’’

‘‘Edward Edelsten Cairns, Scotland’s most prolific vexatious litigant, wrote 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police between 2001 and 2009. His correspondence with officers and other public bodies continued on a near weekly basis.’’

‘‘The letters are confusing and difficult to understand, a report by John McNeill, Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland said. Mr McNeill found that a large amount of money had been spent on dealing with the complaints, which started shortly after Mr Cairns, 59, accused former colleagues from Enterprise Ayrshire of fraudulent behaviour in 1993. The allegations were referred to the procurator-fiscal, who decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute.’’

‘‘In his conclusions, Mr McNeill said: “The Commissioner is aware that during the course of his review the applicant has continued to write to Strathclyde Police regarding some of the above complaints.’’ ‘’

‘’ ‘’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.” ‘‘ 

‘The last sentence ends the extracts.’

 

‘The PIRC wrote to me on 8 February 2017 including the following very important admission:’

 

‘'I fully accept that only 8 of those letters were recorded formally as complaints about police.’' 

 

‘Therefore even the original recommendation to Strathclyde Police had been unjustified having been based upon very damaging inaccuracies about me supposedly having written 82 letters of complaint to the police.’

Why have you culpably disregarded this important information entirely? The SPA has in fact been well aware of the alleged defects in the recommendation for years in the person of Ms Lindsey McNeill, who is alleged to have fabricated information in order to enforce the recommendation when she was Head of Corporate Services for the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland and who is currently being investigated by the SPA for misleading, irregular, improper and unfair conduct, including corrupt practice, when acting as the Director of Governance and Assurance of the SPA in my case.

The new inaccuracies produced by the SPA 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 several inaccuracies that originated in the SPA did not originate in the SPA, by falsely pretending that ACC Nicolson did not ensure that I was contacted because of his application of the recommendation in question regardless of the Chief Constable’s direction for him to do so and not because he had an ulterior motive, by culpably concealing and disregarding material evidence, by unjustifiably rejecting my complaint against ACC Nicolson 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.

 

Yours faithfully,

                              Eddie Cairns.

 

 

 

 

No comments: