Tuesday, 20 June 2017

POLICE SCOTLAND INVOLVEMENT IN COVERING UP FRAUD IN SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE


Mr Eddie Cairns
72 Hillhouse Street
GLASGOW G21 4HP
19 June 2017
 
Mr Alan Speirs
Chief Superintendent
Professional Standards Department
Police Scotland
 
CO/00008/10
CO00318/10
MI/00476/16
 
Dear Mr Speirs,
I refer to your letter dated 1 June 2017 which is postmarked 12 June 2017 and was delivered today.
 
The following heading in your letter is not clear to me:
 
COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE POLICE
UNACCEPTABLE, PERSISTENT AND UNREASONABLE ACTIONS
 
What complaints about the police? And what unacceptable, persistent and unreasonable actions?
 
I believe that such grave accusations against me warrant proper specification.  
 
My previous two letters to you are reproduced below in order to illustrate that your accusation against me of supposedly writing with repetitive content is completely false:
 
 
‘Mr Eddie Cairns’
‘72 Hillhouse Street’
‘GLASGOW G21 4HP’
‘21 April 2017’                 
‘Mr Alan Speirs’
‘Chief Superintendent’
‘Professional Standards Department’
‘Police Scotland’
 
‘MI/00476/16 West/D SG’
 
‘Dear Mr Speirs,’
‘Thank you for your letter dated 13 April 2017 on behalf of DCC Livingstone.’
‘In accordance with the advice in your letter I have written to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.’
‘Thank you for your help.’
‘Yours sincerely,’
                                 ‘Eddie Cairns’
 
‘Mr Eddie Cairns’
‘72 Hillhouse Street’
‘GLASGOW G21 4HP’
‘28 April 2017’
 
‘Mr Alan Speirs’
‘Chief Superintendent’
‘Professional Standards Department’
‘Police Scotland’
 
‘MI/00476/16 West/D SG’
 
‘Dear Mr Speirs,’
‘I have received a letter from the Information Commissioner dated 21 April 2017 containing the following points, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’
 
‘Where an individual makes an organisation aware that they believe it to hold inaccurate data, the organisation should take appropriate steps to ensure that the data it holds is accurate, although it cannot be required to correct data at the request of the individual. However, section 14 of the DPA entitles individuals to apply to the court to request that it orders an organisation to rectify, block, erase or destroy personal data that the court is satisfied is inaccurate.’
 
‘This letter is to notify you that unless Police Scotland takes appropriate steps in a reasonable time to ensure that the data it holds about me is accurate I intend applying to the court to order Police Scotland to rectify the inaccurate data about me that I have already brought to the attention of Police Scotland in previous correspondence.’
 
‘My status as a vexatious litigant only adds another step to the legal process. It does not entirely exclude me from court. In recent years I have been formally authorised to raise proceedings against the Scottish Information Commissioner and Scottish Enterprise.’
 
‘Yours sincerely,’
                                 ‘Eddie Cairns’
 
 
There is no police complaint contained in these communications and I am aware of no outstanding complaints submitted by me against the police currently being addressed by Police Scotland or indeed ever having been addressed by Police Scotland.
 
An important letter from me to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police dated 1 July 2012 is reproduced below in order to identify and quantify the extent of failures by the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police to address any complaints from me over many years up to that point.
 
In the seven years since then there have been only two police complaints submitted by me, one dated 4 June 2016 and one dated 8 June 2016, both of which Police Scotland declined to address:
 
 
 
‘Mr E Cairns’
‘72 Hillhouse Street’
‘GLASGOW G21 4HP’
‘1 July 2012’                 
 
‘The Chief Constable’
‘Strathclyde Police’
‘173 Pitt Street’
‘GLASGOW G2 4JS’
 
‘Dear Sir or Madam,’
‘COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF STRATHCLYDE POLICE’
‘I wrote to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police on 18 July 2008 and attached copies of letters I had written to HMIC on 18 July 2008 and to the Area Procurator Fiscal for Glasgow on 5 July 2008, 17 July 2008 and 18 July 2008.’ 
‘I wrote to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police on 19 July 2008 and 21 July 2008, attaching copies of letters I had sent to the Area Procurator Fiscal for Glasgow on the same dates. On 26 July 2008 I wrote two letters to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, attaching copies of letters I had sent to the Area Procurator Fiscal for Glasgow on 29 November 2007, 1 December 2007 and 26 July 2008.’
‘I wrote to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police on 27 July 2008 attaching a copy of a letter I sent to the Area Procurator Fiscal for Glasgow on the same date.’
‘On 28 July 2008, 31 July 2008, 1 August 2008 I wrote to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police attaching copies of letters I sent to the Lord Advocate on the same dates.’    
‘On 1 August 2008, 2 August 2008, 3 August 2008, 4 August 2008, 6 August 2008, 14 August 2008, 15 August 2008, 16 August 2008, 23 September 2008 I wrote to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police attaching copies of letters I sent to the Area Procurator Fiscal for Glasgow on the same dates.’
‘On 24 September 2008, 7 October 2008, 23 January 2009, 26 January 2009, 20 February 2009, 30 April 2009, 7 May 2009 I wrote to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police.’
‘On 10 November 2008 I wrote to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police attaching a copy of a letter I sent to the Crown Office on the same date.’
‘Within a day or two of the dates on each of some very important letters I had written to the Crown Office, dated 17 April 2011, 19 April 2011 (2 letters), 1 May 2011, 20 May 2011, 16 June 2011, 17 June 2011, 16 July 2011, 1 October 2011 and 30 October 2011 (along with the attachments to that letter) I copied them to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police by email.’
‘Copies of all these letters are attached.’
‘Since I appear to have had no response at all from the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police I want to raise a formal complaint about that. In particular, serious allegations of criminality involving senior members of Crown Office staff and others were included in my letters therefore prompt, appropriate and effective action ought to have been taken.’
‘Strathclyde Police were advised by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland not to address any of my complaints but I have been advised that Strathclyde Police are not bound by that decision and that the Commissioner may have exceeded his powers in that regard.’
‘If an appropriate response is not produced in a reasonable time I will write to the Strathclyde Police Authority.’
‘Yours faithfully,’
                               ‘Eddie Cairns.’
 
 
I sent another important letter dated 9 July 2012 by email to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police and I was notified by email on 12 July 2012 that the Chief Constable had instructed that my correspondence be passed to Mr Ruaraidh Nicolson, Assistant Chief Constable for Crime, who would ensure that I was contacted in due course.
On 8 May 2013 I sent an email pointing out that I had not been contacted by anyone yet and that I had not followed this up before this time because of illness.
 
Although I had been notified by the Chief Constable’s Secretariat that ACC Nicolson would ensure that I was contacted in fact I never was contacted.
 
My very important letter to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police dated 9 July 2012 is reproduced below:
 
‘Mr E Cairns’
‘72 Hillhouse Street’
‘GLASGOW G21 4HP’
‘9 July 2012’                 
 
‘The Chief Constable’
‘Strathclyde Police’
‘173 Pitt Street’
‘GLASGOW G2 4JS’
 
‘Your ref: D/LG/PM – CO/00318/10’
                                 ‘CO/00008/10’
 
‘Dear Mr House,’
‘COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF STRATHCLYDE POLICE’
‘I refer to your response dated 5 July 2012, signed by what appears to be Superintendent James Boyd on your headed notepaper, to my letters dated 26 June 2012 and 1 July 2012.’
‘Firstly, the heading in your letter is inaccurate. I indicated that my complaint was about your personal failures and that if a reasonable response was not produced a complaint would be directed to the Strathclyde Police Authority, not to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland. Consequently, you know that my letters did not constitute a general complaint about the police, contrary to the heading in your letter.’
‘Secondly, your statement in response to my letters that ‘a full review has been carried out of all previous complaints’ made by me is misleading. My two recent letters of complaint against you were certainly not a repetition of previous complaints about the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police. I do not recall ever having raised a previous complaint against the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police. And the earlier letters to the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police that were cited in the two recent complaints letters were themselves not complaints at all, except for the letters dated 1 April 2010 and 30 April 2010. These two letters were in respect of a complaint against DI Graham Cowley, not against the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police.’
‘How many formal complaint references can you come up with to support your assertion that my recent correspondence related to previous complaints against the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police that had all been fully reviewed? I formally request disclosure of any such references. I have certainly never referred any such complaint to the Strathclyde Police Authority.’ 
‘In the light of your inaction and obduracy in my case your professional performance may justifiably be regarded as an impediment to the effective administration of justice in Scotland.’
‘As you well know neither Strathclyde Police nor the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland addressed all the matters that had been brought to your personal attention in the letters recently cited in the two letters of complaint in question. In any event several matters arose, supported by new evidence, after the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland had completed his rather obviously defective report. I note that Strathclyde Police recently challenged the judgment of the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland correctly in another case so any pretence by you that you regard his performance as reliable is not at all credible.’
‘Your assertion that Strathclyde Police has fulfilled the statutory requirements in respect of investigating my complaints is therefore false. For example, Strathclyde Police made no request for any other force to investigate the important allegations of its own officers perverting the course of justice. Neither did Strathclyde Police make any attempt to arrange for an independent and impartial investigation into the allegations against senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Does Strathclyde Police regard these individuals as above the law?’
‘Of course, statutory requirements would clearly include compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and in particular with article 6, ECHR, which you have not respected at all.’
‘The statement in your letter that ‘these matters are concluded’ merely proclaims your disturbing disregard for the rule of law and your utter disdain for the interests of justice. Justice in this case has most definitely not been seen to be done.’ 
‘The PCCS wrote to me on 3 June 2010 including the following statement:’
‘‘On this basis the PCCS will not be re-referring your allegations to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.’’
‘Since the PCCS had already indicated that he has never referred any of my allegations to the COPFS this assertion about not ‘re-referring’ my allegations was misleading. However, it confirms that the criminal allegations were not referred by the PCCS to the COPFS or indeed to any relevant authority for proper investigation.’ 
‘When I encountered this fraud in Scottish Enterprise in 1993 I acted completely in accordance with the ethical accounting guidelines of my professional body, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. I properly objected to the deliberate exclusion from Scottish Enterprise’s balance sheet of £187,069 that had been received from the European Regional Development Fund. My supervisors plainly told me that this was to gain interest for 6 months that otherwise would not be gained, a straight fraud that I was invited to join but declined to join, to the fury of those crooked supervisors and managers, named herein.’  
‘In truth, any independent observer would be hard pressed to discern the slightest commitment on your part to one of your primary duties, the effective investigation of alleged criminality. The initial approach I made to Strathclyde Police resulted in no investigation by the police whatsoever. The so-called police report was in fact prepared by Scottish Enterprise and was obviously rigged. Crucial evidence had been concealed.’
‘I have a copy of that report. I can prove that it was in fact prepared by Scottish Enterprise, not by Strathclyde Police at all.’
‘The only narrative is a copy of the original single page Scottish Enterprise report which concluded:’
‘‘The receipt of ERDF money was brought into the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and should therefore have been accounted for in this month.’’
‘The so-called police report completely omitted my witness statements and the evidence I had provided to Strathclyde Police, not least my email dated 17 August 1993 in which I had stated the following:’
‘’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.’’  
‘This memorandum supported my version of events but both reports entirely omitted it.’
‘The cash came to rest in a bank account in the name of ‘GARY TRACEY C/O ENTERPRISE AYRSHIRE’, which means it was held in the name of my supervisor Gary Tracey personally, at the address of Enterprise Ayrshire.’
‘The significance of these important details was disregarded in the so-called police report and in the Scottish Enterprise report, which instead had falsely implied in its text, but did not specifically state in its conclusion, that the omission of the £187,069 may have been an oversight due to a reconciliation not having been carried out. In fact Scottish Enterprise knew that I had prepared the reconciliation as part of my monthly duties and I gave a copy of it to Strathclyde Police on 19 August 1993, the day after my contract had been abruptly terminated.’  
‘Withholding relevant evidence from a police report is of course a very grave matter indeed, being an attempt to pervert the course of justice.’
‘All my specific allegations were found to be true and within hours of my written objection to the financial irregularities the correction was made. That was a very significant amendment to the accounts, amounting to £187,069 of taxpayers’ money. Scottish Enterprise’s public statement that there had been no grounds for taking any action was a deliberate and blatant lie that Strathclyde Police did absolutely nothing to challenge.’
‘When I obtained further important evidence and passed it on to Strathclyde Police in 2003 the police took prompt action, to have me categorised as a vexatious litigant, which was utterly disgraceful.’
‘In 2003, 2004 and 2005 a prolonged review purportedly being carried out by the police was improperly interfered with by attempts to secure that categorisation, which was not at all justified especially in view of the fact that the same allegations as were alleged to have been vexatious were simultaneously supposedly being investigated in a criminal context.’
‘New evidence that I obtained since September 2008 indicates serious failures by Strathclyde Police in carrying out the original investigation into my allegations of financial irregularities in Enterprise Ayrshire in 1993 and in carrying out subsequent reviews of that investigation.’
‘Strathclyde Police’s relatively recent assertions that all the documentary evidence submitted by me in recent years had been available to the police in 1993 indicates that the police did not handle that evidence properly because that evidence was not passed on to the Procurator Fiscal according to clarifications provided to me.’ 
‘Clarifications obtained from the Procurator Fiscal in 2005 included an assertion that I was the only witness to the alleged financial irregularities in 1993.’
‘Documentary evidence available to the police since 1993 according to the new evidence detailed above contains references to Mr Gary Tracey, Ms Janie Maxwell, Mr Andrew Downie and Ms Alison Norton.’
‘Since the Procurator Fiscal has maintained since 2005 that I was the only witness to the financial irregularities in 1993 the police appear not to have passed on this evidence to the Procurator Fiscal. Alternatively, employees in the COPFS acted improperly by concealing relevant evidence.’
‘I was given the following very important advice by the COPFS for the first time in a letter dated 15 April 2011:’
‘‘In response to your query as to why allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’’
‘My letters raised the very important new substantive issue that the COPFS appear to have dishonestly refused to handle my allegations against COPFS employees properly and that this has been perpetrated by COPFS employees falsely pretending that the criminal allegations submitted were not criminal allegations. The general public already know that the alleged actions listed in my letters do amount to allegations of criminality.’
‘Your effective concurrence with the COPFS’s abject failure to address my genuine concerns indicates that you have effectively entered into the existing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in this case.’   
‘The COPFS’s angle that I was the only witness to the original financial irregularities, which was insufficient for a prosecution, remains an outstanding very significant falsehood.’
‘I did not make any entry in the accounts in respect of the £187,069 of public money in question. I did not make any arrangements for the transfers of the cash, over a period of a week, through three separate bank accounts while the money was excluded from the balance sheet.’
‘How was I the only witness? Were the financial manipulations as revealed in the available documentary evidence conjured up by Harry Potter? Or was it Paul Daniels?’
‘What about the names on the documents recording the financial manipulations and my objections? The names that appear are Andrew Downie, Gary Tracey, Janie Maxwell and Alison Norton.’
‘I also provided the name of Valery Spence, who had been instructed by Gary Tracey not to enter the cash into the accounts at the time of its receipt.’
‘In truth the COPFS’s reason given for not proceeding has no basis in fact or in law. I was plainly not the only witness and the COPFS’s disgraceful persistence in this obvious lie should be properly investigated in the public interest and in the interests of justice.’    
‘The police have in reality wasted an enormous amount of public money in this case trying to suppress the truth and cover for the wrongdoers.’
‘My case effectively raises the issue of the fundamental integrity of the Scottish justice system. I have had almost 30,000 hits on my Scottish Justice blog and public support for me is steadily growing. In fact the general public UK wide can reasonably be regarded as very concerned indeed about the police apparently not doing their job properly, as reported in respect of some highly significant cases.’  
‘Your own conduct appears to have been grossly negligent in view of the very serious allegations that were detailed in my correspondence and sent to you personally because of the grave nature of the allegations. You seem to have completely failed to take appropriate action to have those allegations properly investigated, not least in respect of the operation of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice involving senior managers in Scottish Enterprise, senior Strathclyde Police officers and senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.’
‘Since the allegations, supported by documentary evidence, included several instances of senior Strathclyde Police officers conspiring to pervert the course of justice you ought to have arranged for another force to carry out a prompt, effective, independent and impartial investigation. Further, since very serious allegations had been made in respect of senior employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service the force that you should have approached to investigate that matter ought to have been from another jurisdiction.’
‘Consequently, since your failures as detailed above are very serious indeed I have written to the Strathclyde Police Authority to raise a formal complaint against you.’
‘Yours sincerely,’
                               ‘Eddie Cairns.’
 
This letter dated 9 July 2012 has particular relevance to your letter dated 1 June 2017 since it specifically refers to two of the references in your letter, CO/00318/10 and CO/00008/10. I never did receive any response from the Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police addressing the issues contained therein, nor from ACC Nicolson, and your letter also fails to address any of those issues.                              
 
My reliance upon the terms of Section 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to raise the matter of inaccuracies about me held by Police Scotland is entirely lawful and reasonable. Your objection to me ‘copying information from another public body’, which was in fact relevant advice from the Information Commissioner, has no justification and is in fact unlawful, being a negation of my rights under the Data Protection Act 1998.
 
Does your legal department approve of your negation of my rights under the terms of Section 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998?
 
Your numerous generalisations about my case are lacking in specification and relevancy and are therefore unacceptable.
 
Your statement that I was classed as a vexatious litigant by the Strathclyde Police Legal Services department demonstrating unreasonably persistent behaviour to another policing department merits careful consideration.
 
In fact the police Legal Services department has no power to establish any such classification so your angle about my supposed unreasonably persistent behaviour to another policing department based upon that faulty premise is completely erroneous.
 
In my complaint to the Scottish Police Authority about ACC Nicolson in January 2016 I included the following relevant information on this issue, reproduced here in italics for convenience:
SECTION 5
I obtained important evidence in February 2003 and passed it on to the police.
In July 2003 the police asked the Lord Advocate to raise a petition for me to be categorised as a vexatious litigant.                     
Consequently from a very early stage the police and the Crown Office had no intention of reviewing properly this evidence.  Instead they wanted to cover up the failures revealed in the evidence by having me legally disabled.
The following statement was contained in a copy of a letter sent from the police to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland dated 16 March 2009 which was disclosed to me in 2010 by the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998:
‘In July 2003, the Force took out an Action against Mr Cairns to have him declared a Vexatious Litigant in terms of the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1878 (sic).’   
However, the police were supposedly reviewing this case until 2008.
The Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales concurred with the Faculty of Advocates’ Ms Valerie Stacey QC, now Lady Stacey, a judge at the Court of Session, who advised me that I had grounds for a formal complaint about the conduct of the Lord Advocate in this case for interfering with live civil actions and misdirecting the police.
The police already have copies of these communications from the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales and the Faculty of Advocates’ Ms Valerie Stacey QC.
 
In October 2016 the Police Investigations and Review Commission considered that insufficient enquiry had been made into my complaint about Assistant Chief Constable Nicolson and that the Scottish Police Authority’s response was not adequately reasoned as it did not provide an explanation of the relevant regulations and procedures adopted by the SPA in considering my complaint.
 
As insufficient enquiry was carried out, and as the response was not adequately reasoned, it was concluded that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard.
 
The PIRC stated that ACC Nicolson had highlighted that Police Scotland are considering the new material I brought to them in respect of the Scottish Enterprise fraud investigation, and, that should the material have any evidential value it would be reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
 
In recent years I have been concerned about misconduct by employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in this case and I have raised about a dozen complaints against them, including a complaint against the former Lord Advocate Mr Colin Boyd.
 
Why have the police made no attempt to arrange for an adequate, independent and impartial investigation into those very grave allegations? Do the police regard prosecutors as above the law?
 
On that point I wrote to DCC Livingstone on 4 April 2017 in the following terms:
 
 
‘Mr Eddie Cairns’
‘72 Hillhouse Street’
‘GLASGOW G21 4HP’
‘4 April 2017’                 
 
 
‘Deputy Chief Constable Livingstone’
‘Police Scotland’
 
‘Dear Mr Livingstone,’
‘On 29 November I received an email from PC H766 Kenny Robertson, Chief Constable's Secretariat, Tulliallan FK10 4BE in the following terms, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’
‘I write on behalf of Chief Constable Philip Gormley with regard to your email received on 29 November 2016.’
‘I can confirm that this matter has been passed to Deputy Chief Constable Livingstone's office for consideration.’
 ‘On 4 December 2016 I wrote to you with additional information in support of my position.’
‘If you have sent a response to my request dated 29 November 2016 I have not received it.’
‘In the light of the new evidence arising during 2016 in this case the letter to me from Ms Catherine Dyer of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service dated 8 April 2005 is confirmed not to be in accordance with the evidence now available.’
 
‘In particular, the following statements in that letter, reproduced here in italics for convenience, are inaccurate:’
 
‘1.     In this particular case the only witness alleging that criminal conduct took place by either the police officers or any personnel of Ayrshire Enterprise (sic) or the organisations that reviewed  Ayrshire Enterprise’s (sic) intromissions with these funds is a single source, namely yourself.’ 
 
‘2.     There is no ‘’corroboration‘’ of any of your allegations and accordingly there is an insufficiency in law to allow any proceedings on criminal charges.’
 
‘On 15 April 2011 Ms Michelle Macleod, Head of Policy, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, wrote to me including the following statement, reproduced here in italics for convenience:’
 
‘In response to your query as to why allegations of criminal conduct made by you regarding COPFS employees have not been referred to Crown Counsel, I can advise that none of the allegations made by you amounted to conduct of a criminal nature.’
 
‘Since I have alleged that the new evidence arising in 2016 confirms beyond reasonable doubt that employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service concealed material evidence and conspired to pervert the course of justice in this case, Ms Macleod’s assertion about my allegations not amounting to conduct of a criminal nature has no credibility, giving rise to an appearance of unfairness in the handling of this case by named individuals in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that may reasonably be suspected as attributable to their lack of the required independence and impartiality.’
 
‘To this day employees in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service appear to be deliberately refusing to submit my allegations to independent Crown Counsel not because my allegations did not amount to criminal conduct but rather in order to cover up misconduct by their colleagues.’
 
‘If Police Scotland does not address this failure the general public will justifiably conclude that Police Scotland regards employees of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service as above the law. Justice has so far not been seen to be done.’  
 
‘Since this is undoubtedly a matter of serious concern to the general public especially in the context of the alleged cover up of fraud in a public agency in respect of some £187,000 of taxpayers’ cash I have published this letter on the internet.’
 
‘Yours sincerely,’
 
                                  ‘Eddie Cairns.’
 
 
The following statement in your letter dated 1 June 2017, reproduced here in italics for convenience, is simply a blatant falsehood, completely lacking in specification and relevancy:
 
‘It is clear that you continue to repetitively rehearse issues which have previously been addressed by Strathclyde Police and Police Scotland.’
 
If you can produce any communications from Strathclyde Police or Police Scotland that address any of the issues in the case of the alleged fraud in Scottish Enterprise that would be helpful indeed. Please forward copies to me because apparently I was not on the original mailing list.
 
Your assertion to me in your letter that ‘Police Scotland ........ made repeated attempts to answer your questions by providing explanations to you’ is, again, completely false.
 
As for your statement that the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland was satisfied in the main with the conduct of the officers involved and the enquiries undertaken, this is untenable since the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner referred criminal allegations against named police officers in this case to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on 2 November 2016 and I have received no communication from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on the handling of that referral.
 
Also, the PIRC confirmed to me in a letter dated 8 February 2017 that there were only 8 letters of complaint against the police, not 82 as had been falsely stated and erroneously acted upon by Professor John McNeill to try to justify his recommendation for the police to ignore me.      
 
As you probably know the police already wrote to me years ago confirming that I did not actually submit 82 letters of complaint to the police and suggested that I take the matter up with the Commissioner. 
 
Your angle that you find my refusal to accept police explanations manifestly unreasonable has no sound basis that accords with the facts. What explanations?
 
For the sake of brevity I will focus here only upon two points requiring explanations.
 
First, what was the police explanation for the £187,000 of UK taxpayers’ cash found to be resting in a bank account in the name of one of my supervisors Mr Gary Tracey personally for almost two months while that money was excluded from the company’s balance sheet and already credited with interest of £919.31 earned on that misappropriated cash in the name of Mr Gary Tracey personally?
 
Second, what was the police explanation for failing to carry out adequate investigations into my allegations both in 1993 and in 2016 and for conspiring with Scottish Enterprise to conceal material evidence from the manifestly defective Scottish Enterprise report on the alleged financial irregularities?
 
I do not have a copy of any such police explanations. Maybe they got lost in the post and you can provide them to me now.
 
In any event these are questions that will justifiably be raised by the general public in due course when such failures are fully disclosed. The public tend to be unforgiving when it comes to fraudulent accounting to facilitate the theft of a substantial amount of public money.
 
I have already been approached recently by a news editor about this case.  
 
All your accusations about me being an unreasonable person have no grounds that accord with the verifiable facts. I am a qualified accountant who correctly objected to being incited by my supervisors to enter into a conspiracy to falsify the accounts in a public agency. When I declined and put my concerns into writing I was immediately removed from the premises before any investigation had been carried out, completely stonewalled thereafter and publicly disparaged by the fraudsters.
 
I lost my career, my house, my car and all my other assets, and I was eventually declared bankrupt as a result of a succession of crooks and liars involved in this case. My health was adversely affected by stress to the point of hospitalisation. How dare you assert that my conduct has been manifestly unreasonable in those circumstances.
 
Available evidence proves that the police carried out no investigation at all in 1993 but unfairly accepted as valid the report produced by Scottish Enterprise which, although seriously defective in many respects since material evidence had been concealed, at least concluded that the cash in question had indeed been omitted from the company’s balance sheet for the time that I alleged. However, no plausible explanation for this significant financial irregularity was provided.
 
Available evidence also proves that in 2016 the police again failed to carry out an adequate investigation into my allegations, unfairly accepted as valid the manifestly defective report that had been produced by Scottish Enterprise in 1993 and conspired with Scottish Enterprise to pervert the course of justice by concealing material evidence.
 
How do you sleep at night, knowing that all your false accusations and lies about me will inevitably come to light in due course? You are in fact knowingly on the wrong side of the law in this case, effectively a willing participant in the existing criminal conspiracy to cover up significant financial irregularities in Scottish Enterprise.
 
Consequently, you personally are a major impediment to the proper administration of justice in Scotland, deservedly heading for seriously adverse consequences and public disgrace.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
                                Eddie Cairns

No comments: