The Independent Republic of the Canongate - tells the stories behind the PR spin of the developers, the architects, politicians and council officials...see www.eh8.org.uk for more information
davieinbridgie@btinternet.com 21st November, 2,007. The Office of The First Minister St. Andrew’s House, Regent Road, Edinburgh. COPY FOR INFO EH1 3DG
Complaints Against ‘Ministers’
Complaint; Failing to abide by the definitions and obligations in the Scottish Executive Fraud Policy with regards the complaint of complicity in fraud I have made against Ministers.
Complaint; Failing to adjust Executive attitude and policy as to be in accord and commensurate with, the fraud policy previously referred to.
Complaint; Failing in the duty of care Ministers have regarding an Historic Building Listed by the Scottish Executive as Grade B and failing to protect the equality of designation of that official ‘heritage value’ grading within that category and allowing The Grade B Museum Hall to be re-designated in heritage value terms as of insufficient heritage value to attract lottery funding. That is to say the Grade B Museum Hall has, according to the Court of Session the same level of heritage value as a building with no Grade at all despite the Scottish Executives official Listing reflects a degree of equality of heritage value within each grade. A Grade B is as a Grade B anywhere and the Scottish Executive/Ministers are aware of the deception that enabled that re-designation.
Complaint; Failing to maintain integrity, probity and legal legitimacy in the Planning System for which the Scottish Executive are responsible. The planning system has been abused and rendered complicit in fraud by allowing it to be an active and essential component in the success of perpetrated fraud when the ability to stop that fraud and abuse of the system lay(s) with ‘Ministers.’
Complaint; Failing to recognise the Opinion of Lord Penrose regarding Listing on the grounds they have the certain knowledge that a Grade B is as a Grade B anywhere but refuse to recognise, in similar fashion, that the pivotal evidence removing the Museum Hall from eligibility for consideration by the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund was and is a falsehood despite arguing that the Museum Hall was/is eligible for such consideration and having ascertained from the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund that that is the case. It is reckless stupidity, if not a great deal worse, to defend as if legitimate what is known to be wrong when the subject is pertinent to the proper deliberations expected of Ministers in the execution of their duties.
Complaint; Failing to protect a Grade B Listed Building by failing to implement and uphold the Scottish Executive’s own crystal clear, unambiguous, categorical policy i.e. “no worthwhile building of architectural or historic interest is lost to our environment unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of keeping it.”
Complaint; Failing to show full and proper respect to and for an Official Repairs Order served on Stirling District Council and failing to recognise and concede the intent of that Order served by Historic Scotland on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland was to maintain the building in the same condition as was the case at the time of implementation of the Order and thereafter for failing to recognise and concede that such Orders cannot be served on buildings beyond viable restoration. Nor have Ministers recognised or conceded that the Museum Hall, obliged to be preserved by Official Order in a viable restorative state remains in a viable restorative state in consequence of the Official Repairs Order. The Order was imposed after years of civic neglect designed to cause as much damage as possible in order to get the result they wanted. The Arbiter of viable restoration was, of course, Historic Scotland!
Complaint; Ignoring The Opinion of Lord Penrose who asserts in Opinion that he is in no doubt that good use would be made of a restored Museum Hall and that the Museum Hall would be lost if redeveloped and that the Museum Hall would be ‘lost’ by redevelopment.
Complaint; Failing to have a means of ensuring the upholding of law is mandatory within the Scottish Executive and all sectors of the governance of Scotland and that accusations of lawbreaking be taken seriously and investigated and that every accusation is investigated by the appropriate authorities as the condition of service encompassed by the expression ‘uphold the law’ requires. Complaint; Establishing as policy unlawful conduct as an acceptable means to an end in defiance of all that is ethical and all that is indicative or definitive of probity, in defiance of the Code of Conduct and in defiance of the law itself thereby exposing the judicial system to corrupt exploitation and recklessly allowing the Scottish Executive to being held to political or commercial ransom in future events and issues when it seeks to impose the obligations of ethics, probity and legality in other circumstances.
Complaint; Bringing the reputation of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive into disrepute in consequence of aforementioned complaints all of which remain unresolved.
Fraud does not vary or alternate between legal practise and illegal practise in consequence of location, date, perpetrator, friends, cronies or colleagues past or present, of perpetrators or the preference for a particular outcome by political and civil members of all or any form of government national or local by any which way methodology it/they can achieve. There appears to be pretence on the part of Ministers that if they sanction the means of fraud succeeding they are not endorsing the fraud as if legitimate and ethical conduct and that by endorsing fraud they do not become complicit in that fraud when in fact they do.
One cannot surmise with the legitimacy of any defined legality someone knowingly providing the means of say fraud, or any other offence to claim innocence because they did not engage in the fraud or other offence themselves when first perpetrated but simply enabled it to progress to success whilst all the time having the choice of stopping it’s progress. Any component of a criminal act that is pivotal, that is to say, the crime cannot succeed without that component is, without a shadow of a doubt, complicit in the crime in question. Numerous accusations of fraud made by me have been ignored or side stepped but not a single politician or civil servant has made the claim that the fraud that features in my accusation is not fraud. It therefore follows, even on the most elementary level of analyses that they, each and everyone, recognises the possibility of the accusation of fraud being actual fraud. This said they ignore what clearly they recognise as at the very least, as being possible. The only possible interpretation of this double standard is that regardless of whether it is fraud or not they are not going to oppose or investigate it. Apart from anything else this is deceit perpetrated on the people of Scotland which is supportive of unlawful conduct prevailing over the law, justice and natural justice and this is an arrogant affront to democracy.
When the possibility of fraud exists it cannot be ignored and covered up without those ignoring and covering up becoming involved in unethical and unlawful conduct. Presumably damage caused to an important Listed Building is criminal damage if the means by which damage was sanctioned was itself the sole means of ensuring success of a fraud that made all subsequent actions possible.
The First Minister, Ministers, MSPs, Civil Servants, Councillors, local authority Executives, Local Authority Planners and all other local authority staff are obliged to uphold the law. ‘Uphold’ is defined as to maintain or affirm in the face of a challenge. All codes of conduct require nothing less than the upholding of law and the maintenance of ethical standards and probity in conduct. A ‘challenge’ to the law has been made which involves Ministers either allowing that challenge to succeed or preventing it from enjoying success.
It is clear that Ministers unwillingness to maintain integrity in the legal and planning systems by turning a blind eye and deaf ear to complaints of public sector fraud requires the incentive in the form of penalty when refusing to uphold the law. Permitting fraud to succeed is not upholding the law. Assisting fraud to succeed, even by failing to act against it, is not upholding the law. Failing to have accusations of fraud investigated is not upholding the law. Failing to act on complaints of fraud also exposes the entire Scottish Executive to the suggestion that when fraud is ignored then so too there may be others, there may in fact be any number of frauds perpetrated. The is always a willingness on the part of many to think the Scottish Executive is rotten to the core, this failure to act only encourages such talk and the sad thing is that in this case there would be some justification. The fraud I allege is blatant, the actions of Stirling Council corresponds exactly to the terms of Scottish Executive Fraud Policy definitions and as if that wasn’t enough the CEO Historic Scotland has confirmed that the view given to the court and accepted by the court as true regarding the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund and indeed Historic Scotland Grants are the complete opposite to the truth.
The notion that MSPs and Ministers can use the expression ‘uphold the law’ as if a sound bite and ignore a challenge that undermines the integrity of judges, the integrity of courts, the integrity of laws and the integrity of the Scottish Parliament and it’s Executive is not only wholly absurd it subverts democracy by subverting the very bases of any democracy and that is justice.
The challenge to law I refer to is falsehood, deception and the omission of material evidence presented to a court in order deprive the people of Bridge of Allan and others in the wider Scottish community of the Listed Grade B Museum Hall Public Hall all of which is dependant for it coming to pass on the hands off approach by Ministers.
The Scottish Executive Fraud Policy definition of fraud is categorical, is unambiguous and is precise; “It is usually used to describe depriving someone of something by deceit” Scottish Executive Fraud Policy. Ministers argue with their own policy when their own policy asserts fraud has occurred and Ministers don’t give a damn.
It is shameful and disgraceful that Ministers and Executive staff set themselves up above the law as if rulers of some strange numtydom where law is made up by dictatorial whim and fancy when in fact Scotland has a proud heritage not just in our fine heritage including our public halls etc. but in our legal system as well. Treating fraud with a nod and a wink in order to protect decay in the system in the stead of seizing the opportunity to cut it out and make the system as clean as it can be is an absolute disgrace.
The cavalier attitude exercised so well by Ministers and those who represent and advise them in terms of the evading of responsibility for allowing a fraud to succeed whilst simultaneously endorsing a contempt of court and negation of government policy is not, by any standard, upholding the law.
I have sought, but not received, rational explanation of why falsehood, deception and the omission of material evidence is not, according to the Scottish Executive, fraud when that statement amounts to the entire bases of the definition used by the Scottish Executive to define Fraud.
Rational explanation as to why Ministers and civil servants defy the published terms of the Scottish Executive Fraud Policy has not been provided. Reasons why a fraud that requires their endorsement directly or indirectly does not involve them have not been made.
I have sought explanation and answer to the question how could such a fraud be successful without the endorsement/cooperation of every single stage of the planning system up to and including Ministers but no such explanation or answer has been provided nor can it be other than the Executive admit that this fraud can only succeed with the cooperation of Ministers in the Planning Process turning a blind eye and deaf ear to accusations of illegalities that by right of law demands rendering the planning permission null and void.
The planning process is totally flawed by the acceptance by Ministers that accusations of unlawful conduct do not have to be investigated and that the failure of the system in so much as legal obligation for those in the planning system to consider every complaint, objection or opinion was just simply ignored by Stirling Council and complaints to the Scottish Executive saw an intensive effort to ignore it as if it were either normal or of no legal consequence. Fraud is illegal, a planning process that only exists or existed because it was enabled by a fraudulent action of which the planning system is vital for the success of the fraud in question is therefore not a legal framework for a statutory procedure One cannot comply with a statutory procedure by breaking the law.
Explanation as to why contempt of Court that consequentially involves Ministers in Fraud which shames the Scottish Executive/Scottish Parliament and effectively waves two fingers at the Scottish People as if demonstrating we have power and we can do this if we want to – the law is just for the little people and we are the big guys on the Scottish Block and we can fix anything is of no concern to Ministers has not been provided despite every effort to attain.
Historical Note; The two finger gesture, a gesture of derision started when the English Long Bow with its unique construction had devastating effect on the French army. French prisoners taken were given the two finger gesture by their captors indicating the two fingers that pulled their bow strings enabling capture..
If the Scottish First Minister seeks a fair honest open and equal society he should seek Judicial Revue of their policy presently in practise and subject of this complaint that currently demonstrates the Scottish Executive gives endorsement to unlawful conduct as a justifiable means to an end. The Scottish First Minister will not, of course engage this simple solution because he, and all his Ministers know the answer without doing that, IF ONLY THEY WOULD ADMIT IT.
On any other occasion in the future when the Scottish Executive then seeks to assert unlawful conduct is not an acceptable means to an end this tragic and miserable farce will rear it’s ugly head again unless Ministers decide now that the honour of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament along with respect for the courts, the judiciary and the people of Scotland is worth more than pandering to a few local party members in Bridge of Allan and Stirling regardless of how distinguished they may be.
If the complaints of fraud are true it follows, therefore, that Ministers must exercise their right to ‘call in’ the planning application or ‘withdraw approval’ in the interest of legal obligations, ethical standards and the respect of probity which must form a conscious and visible respect for the law and for the public good of the wider public of Scotland. To argue, as appears to be the case, that fraud can be in the public interest is a complete derogation of responsibility, contempt for law and contempt for the definitions provided by the Scottish Executive Fraud Policy.
Scottish Executive Policy Statement Friday, January 19, 2007 FRAUD “7. Fraud can be perpetrated by persons outside as well as inside an organisation and by collusion. The criminal act is the attempt to deceive and attempted fraud is therefore treated as seriously as accomplished fraud. The term "fraud" is used to describe such acts as deception, bribery, forgery, extortion, corruption, theft, conspiracy, embezzlement, misappropriation, false representation, concealment of material facts, and collusion. It is usually used to describe depriving someone of something by deceit, which might either be straight theft or misuse of funds or other resources, or more complicated crimes like false accounting and the supply of false information.”
Explanation as to why my complaint to Stirling Council, part of the governance of this country and integral to the planning system for which Ministers are ultimately responsible against the planning application in question was ignored and civic contempt of regulations governing complaints was not considered pertinent or of concern to Historic Scotland/Ministers has not been provided. The legal obligation to consider all observations and complaints was ignored the planning procedure should have been halted there and then but it was not.
If you countenance connivance for convenience you countenance conspiracy. The complaint was made to the Planning Departments Complaints Procedure and each complaint emphasised with enlarged bold print and the complaints of falsehoods deception and questionable legality were ignored on the grounds that the council were unaware the complaints were complaints.
Provisions surrounding Statutory Advertisements regarding planning applications obliges views of any member of the public be taken into account and that means there is a Statutory Duty to read responses or complaints in response to the Statutory Advertisement. The Civil Service Code, The Code of Conduct for Councillors and the law require accusations of falsehoods and deception - fraud to be investigated. There is, in deed, a categorical assertion by the Scottish Executive all accusations will be investigated.
When Planners failed to take these accusations into account, when investigation of accusations did not occur, they endorsed, in the face of accusation, falsehood, deception and fraud as a legitimate part of a Statutory Planning Process. When they did not take these views into account the Planners failed in their duty under the law and so the planning process was flawed there and then.
Clearly if the regulations require all opinions to be taken into account and complaints challenging the legality of the process being employed are ignored and supervisory aspects of the Scottish Executive advising Ministers are aware of such complaint, and do not take heed or action, the probity of the entire planning process, up to and including ‘Ministers’ are entirely lost. Minister have a duty to ensure ethical standards and legal obligations are not compromised in any way. An accident is one thing but a fraud is another thing completely and it is inconceivable that Minister do not know this.
My complaint to Stirling Council intimated many views wholly supportive of restoring the Museum Hall as well as a precise and wholly accurate quote from Lord Penrose’s Opinion demonstrating his preference for restoration, condemnation of reducing it to ‘the lowest common denominator’ and acceptance that good and proper use would be made of the hall.
By the time of the planning application and my subsequent complaint the Council were in no doubt as to whether or not the Museum Hall was eligible for consideration by the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund and Historic Scotland Grants contrary to the evidence they provided to the Court of Session. Lottery Funds were sought and received to enhance privately owned Grade C houses, flats and business properties. I do, in fact, attribute Stirling Council with the ability to place B before C in a graduated alphabetical order but perhaps others may disagree.
It should be noted that I have faithfully reproduced many times the wholly accurate and in context Opinion of Lord Penrose favouring restoration and condemning redevelopment and that on every occasion the recipients of my complaints have treated his Opinion with contempt because they know the truth, they know what formed the conclusion in the judges Opinion was not the truth but was in fact total disregard for honesty that provided falsehood, deception and omission of material evidence.
One can only assume that those who openly display contempt for the judiciary and those who openly support that contempt for the judiciary do so, probably for the assured reason, that powerful people will protect them or that they are powerful people in effect, above the law.
The Scottish Executive has failed in it’s duty of care to consider the fragile legal position of the purchaser of property only made available for purchase by means of fraud and only purchased on condition planning permission is secured for the redevelopment of the property only made available by fraud and which would not be purchased without planning permission being granted or being ‘called in.’
Given the property in question is only available by means of fraud the planning permission, if denied or called in by the Scottish Executive would prevent fraud succeeding and the purchaser would not be vulnerable in the future to enforcing purchase agreements on a flat or flats as the vendor if would be vendee(s) became aware of the unstable legal foundations of the vendor or indeed in other ways where the rights of the purchaser were challenged.
My list of complaints and requests for Ministerial answers was sent to my MSP by Recorded Delivery. My MSP who had the assertion ‘Save our Halls’ in his Election Manifesto is of the same Party as Ministers and access to Ministers is/was therefore guaranteed. In the absence of proof to the contrary, I must assume my requests for information and complaints of fraud going without investigation were sent to Ministers. It is certainly the case that Minister Fabiani responded to confirm a view diametrically opposed to the influencing evidence presented to the Court of Session by Stirling Council. The Minister did mention Repairs Orders but appeared to be totally unaware of the Repairs Order or it’s function to which I referred to and was completely unconcerned as to complaints of fraud being the enabling factor of a planning application. The Repairs Order I referred to was the one served on Stirling District Council. This very limited and ill informed response was a long way short of answering all the issues raised in this complaint.
In the letters to my MSP I informed Ministers and asked questions but the absence of replies from Ministers could be the symptom of various possibilities but my letters, none the less, are intimations to Ministers of grievance regarding public sector fraud, failure to adhere to government policy, failure to respect the courts by failing to challenge the deception of the court and demands for proper ethical honourable conduct upholding the law. Legal status cannot be conferred on actions or functions enabled by unlawful conduct.
Strangely enough I wrote to my local councillor of the same party as my MSP and Ministers and he too failed to respond but again I must assume, in the absence of proof that he contacted our MSP and our MSP contacted Ministers. It is certainly the case that justice appears to take a lower level of importance than giving over our public hall that belongs and should serve to the benefit the many and not the interests of the few.
I don’t know, although I should do, whether or not my MSP and one of my Councillors acted without prejudice, with integrity and honour or not. If Ministers deny the contacts integrity and honour and acting without prejudice would require were made then they accuse these people of these ethical deficits. If they have been made, why have I not received the answers to the serious questions raised on my behalf? It may be that standards are very low but that is not an argument for failing to act against fraud.
The accusation of falsehood, deception and omission of material facts I make against Stirling Council are not complex. Stirling Council was asked about finances available to it regarding possible restoration of the Museum Hall. Stirling Council misled the court and omitted material evidence regarding the pivotal issue of finance available to the council.
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly, therefore, be unaware that the legal position regarding liability and the legal position regarding responsibility is Corporate and those departmental services and/or their budgets are not responsible or liable?
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly be unaware, therefore, of the existence of Stirling Council’s Corporate Capital Budget? The council executive certainly new before this question of finances and after this question of that there is/was no doubt. Public Council records will show Stirling Tolbooth was refurbished with one million pound from the council budgets along with external funding of over four million pounds.
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly be unaware, therefore, of the existence of a Corporate seven figure Contingency Budget?
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council for excellence would not know, therefore, the meaning of ‘Contingency,’ i.e. to cover the costs of unforeseen circumstances such as, say, a court, having heard the truth in evidence, denying the council right to alienate the Museum Hall from the Common Good and to reduce the hall to the lowest common denominator, perhaps indicating such redevelopment as an unattractive policy and suggesting the council commit it’s efforts to restoration!
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly consider, therefore, Historic Scotland grants providing 25/30% of a new roof, underpinning, internal works supporting the exterior, drainage, down-pipes etc. ‘small scale’ and of little significance.
Note: Historic Scotland/Scottish Executive Policy was effectively maligned in court but an Historic Scotland/Scottish Executive appears completely unconcerned and has not done anything to seek redress or amendment to a public record of the erroneous suggestion that Historic Scotland Grants are ‘small scale’ unless of course this is what they actually think.
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly consider, therefore that a substantial annual expense for roof repairs should feature in council evidence of ‘running costs’ for a restored hall with a new roof. The costs associated with restoration, quoted by the council, included a new roof.
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly consider, therefore that a building run as a charitable trust would get Rates Relief. Rates were included in the running costs identified by the Council.
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly, therefore, believe that the Museum Hall, a Grade B Listed Public Building in the midst of an Outstanding Conservation Area has ‘insufficient heritage value’ to be eligible for consideration for funding from the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund when all Listed Buildings Grades are eligible?
Note; The National Lottery’s Heritage Fund was advised of the Opinion of the Court that they only funded Grade A Listed Buildings and of the assertions made by Stirling Council that formed the bases of the Court Opinion and declined to seek redress or amendment of the public record maligning or distorting it’s policy.
Given the Chief Executive of Historic Scotland has already established the Court was deceived because he holds a view regarding the National Lottery eligibility that is diametrically opposed to the view accepted by the Court (provided by Stirling Council) as honest and true. Given the Chief Executive of Historic Scotland acquired the certainty of precise accurate information regarding the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund from the Chair of Trustees of that organisation he discovered himself that the court was deceived. His actions on discovering this was not as ‘uphold the law’ would demand his actions however were contrary to what uphold the law requires in terms of action. It is inconceivable that a Chief Executive of Historic Scotland would be unaware of the Scottish Executive’s Fraud Policy and definitions of fraud especially when I quoted them to him.
Ministers and Historic Scotland say that the fraud of which I complain, that is the fraud that can only succeed if Ministers allow the Planning System to be used to enable success of the fraud has nothing to do with them. It is argued by Ministers or those responding for Ministers that because it involves the decision of a court Ministers and Historic Scotland are obliged therefore to allow the success of the fraud as if the court demands fraud prevails on it’s say so.
Who in this country would believe for one second that any member of the judiciary would condone fraud by virtue of the fact that deception and omission of material evidence was contemptuously exercised in the court’s jurisdiction resulting in the court, based on deceptive evidence, concluding in Opinion something other than the truth. If Ministers are in doubt they should seek judicial revue of whether or not a court deceived is a court content with deception in the belief that dishonesty is an honest endeavour.
A Court accepting views in good faith and belief honesty prevailed cannot be accused of knowingly supporting untruthful statements nor can it be held responsible for subsequent collaboration of the authorities in continuance of the fraud that collaboration is entirely attributable to the authorities in question.
Given that Ministers have not sought Judicial Revue it would appear that they believe that a fraud, no matter how big or how small, if committed by the contemptuous deceit of a bona fide properly constituted Court of Justice must be given respect as if it were the product of honesty, was compliant with all laws and as such fraud is a legal pursuit. Such a view by Executive Law Makers is of course unlawful.
The following suggestion is not facetious nor is it contemptuous, it is essential and it is a suggestion of great importance; Ministers and all concerned in the Scottish Executive, whether political or civil servant should ask themselves the question if I support falsehoods and deceptions what does that make me? If they are truthful with themselves and don’t like the only answer possible, they know who to blame for their own opinion and subsequent conduct and should understand when others blame them too.
The law recognises the importance of those who enable success of dishonesty and unlawful conduct, why should Ministers enabling success of dishonesty and unlawful behaviour be any different from the general public, why indeed would anyone claiming integrity and honesty as appropriate accolades for their self description consider such enablement of success for fraud to be acceptable?
Ministers and Historic Scotland are acting as if the Opinion of Lord Penrose is in some way obliging them to approve a planning application, or to wave all normal conditions requiring a Statutory Planning Application to exercise integrity and probity or indeed to allow fraud to succeed. There appears to be a contention on the part of Ministers and Historic Scotland that the three or four pages of Opinion was Lord Penrose rambling without thought or care for what he was saying and/or that everything other than the conclusion he made (having accepted evidence as honest and true) is his Opinion. Why then is his Opinion described as his Opinion at the beginning and not solely at the conclusion? Meanwhile, the Scottish Executive confirm the court was deceived by holding a view diametrically opposed to what the court was told which was accepted in good faith as if honest and true.
Extract from the Opinion of Lord Penrose demonstrating restoration to be more desirable than loss of the Museum Hall through redevelopment. “I am not satisfied the building had become redundant by the time it was closed, nor that it would not attract appropriate community uses if it were restored. Mr Woolman’s* findings on the potential uses of the hall illustrates a wide range of community and cultural which could be served if the hall were restored. It would have a practical use in the community in the local and in the wider community. Nor am I persuaded that it is material that Bridge of Allan is better served by the provision of recreational and cultural facilities than other districts in the Petitioners area. The argument that in comparison with other districts, Bridge of Allan can somehow afford to lose the Museum Hall because of other facilities which exist there is some what lacking in taste as well as being irrelevant to the central issue. If a community has developed and had the benefit of wide range of facilities over it’s historical life it is likely that that has been the product of local pride and the application of locally generated resources. Reduction of all to the lowest common denominator is not an attractive policy.” Lord Penrose – Court of Session NOTE: Lord Penrose makes it clear in his Opinion that redevelopment constitutes the LOSS of the Museum Hall. “The argument that in comparison with other districts, Bridge of Allan can somehow afford to lose the Museum Hall because of other facilities which exist there is some what lacking in taste as well as being irrelevant to the central issue.” To lose the Museum Hall’ is a direct reference to redevelopment. Reduction of all to the lowest common denominator is not an attractive policy” is a reference to Flats Redevelopment. That is the Opinion of Lord Penrose so why is it not the view of Ministers given Ministers have access to the truth that he was denied?
Ministers ignore what they know to be true and support with action that which they know to be untrue. How on earth can this be ethical conduct? Minister Fabiani confirms The National Lottery’s Heritage Fund is a possible source of funding but Minister support the conclusion of Lord Penrose in Opinion that asserts it is not. This acceptance of the product of deception as bona fide conduct creates a legitimacy for deception the consequence of which, in this case, is the alienation of a Grade B Listed Public Hall from the common good simply in order for it to be destroyed for the benefit of a privileged few at the expense of the many.
Ministers have failed in their duty to uphold the law and should seek Judicial Revue of the current Scottish Executive Policy of accepting Falsehood and Deception as legitimate forms of evidence and valid reason for the destruction of a Listed Building in the midst of an Outstanding Conservation Area that is protected by laws affording protection from unlawful conduct. Ministers should let us all see if the Courts agree with their ridiculous and dangerous concept of ethical standards and honourable conduct.
Ministers confirm key points of evidence are wholly and totally wrong but still they sit on their hands rather than get them clean by demanding ethical and honourable conduct prevails and our Courts have their protection as opposed to their present efforts that inevitably undermine the entire concept of honesty before the Courts, endanger justice as a right and expose Scotland to ethical and legal degeneration.
Meanwhile Ministers know that in every community in Scotland there is need and appreciation of community halls. Lord Penrose makes mention of local pride in his Opinion; “If a community has developed and had the benefit of wide range of facilities over it’s historical life it is likely that that has been the product of local pride and the application of locally generated resources. Reduction of all to the lowest common denominator is not an attractive policy.” Ministers ignore this part of Lord Penrose’s Opinion albeit they know it to be true.
Another part of the Opinion of Lord Penrose ignored by Ministers is as follows “I am not satisfied the building had become redundant by the time it was closed, nor that it would not attract appropriate community uses if it were restored. Mr Woolman’s* findings on the potential uses of the hall illustrates a wide range of community and cultural which could be served if the hall were restored. It would have a practical use in the community in the local and in the wider community. Nor am I persuaded that it is material that Bridge of Allan is better served by the provision of recreational and cultural facilities than other districts in the Petitioners area.
Ministers also ignore the Opinion of Lord Penrose when he asserts “Reduction of all to the lowest common denominator is not an attractive policy.” In effect, Lord Penrose is referring to Ministers policy albeit the Ministers Policy is the blind acceptance of Stirling Council’s Policy without so much as the courtesy of reading the Opinion of Lord Penrose or the integrity of challenging dishonesty with the truth.
Ministers should know Lord Penrose favoured, in Opinion, restoration to and for, the public use: Ministers know, as fact, that the Museum Hall is eligible for consideration of Lottery Funding and that such is diametrically opposed to what the Court was convinced of being the case. Ministers know that Stirling Council has a Corporate Capital Budget of millions of pounds; Ministers know or can confirm that Stirling Council have a Contingency Budget over a million pounds per year; Ministers know as fact Historic Scotland Grants are worthwhile and are not what could normally be called ‘small scale;’ Ministers know that funding was the pivotal issue before the Court of Session, and Ministers know the Court was deceived. Probity of action cannot be founded on illicit or illegal foundations.
If Ministers have any regard for justice, honesty, integrity or indeed the Opinion of Lord Penrose’ his favoured option would be honoured with compliance given that Ministers know the truth that Lord Penrose was denied.. It is clear, however, that cash for dishonour should be allowed to prevail is presently the favoured option by Ministers despite the inevitable contempt of court, falsehoods, deception and concealment of material facts expose whilst at the same time Ministers hold the knowledge that such cash for dishonour cannot materialise as successful without their support.
NOT AT ANY TIME HAS STIRLING COUNCIL, HISTORIC SCOTLAND OR MINISTERS DENIED FRAUD HAS OCCURRED OR THAT THE PLANNING SYSTEM HAS BEEN USED, OR ABUSED, AS AN ENABLING MECHANISM FOR FRAUD TO SUCCEED OR THAT SUCCESS OF THE UN-DENIED FRAUD COULD SUCCEED WITHOUT MINISTERS GIVING APPROVAL OR REFUSING TO ‘CALL IN’ OR WITHDRAW IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE. PROCEEDING IN THE FACE OF ACCUSATION, WITHOUT DENIAL, IS, IN EFFECT, AN ADMISSION THAT THE ACCUSATION IS TRUE.
Kenny MacAskill MSP responded recently in newspapers to Opinion giving Prisoners the vote asserting, against the Opinion “This is utter nonsense. The European Convention on Human Rights should be about protecting people from cruelty, harm and ensuring equality for law abiding citizens, not giving the franchise to those who do not respect the law and commit serious offences." I assert that Ministers are giving Stirling Council franchise do disrespect the law and exercise Contempt of Court. As a Minister, does Mr. MacAskill favour the people who disrespect the law and commit serious offences undermining the law abiding citizens of Bridge of Allan and elsewhere throughout Scotland who expect, as of right, one law for all and equality before the law?
If one gives support for fraud whilst holding a position that can stop that fraud progressing to success and fails to do so one fails, by any measure, the most basic test of integrity, honesty and probity.
Ministers have failed to ensure that government policy which is crystal clear and armed with emphatic categorical statements be observed. Given that it is impossible to exercise the government policy after redevelopment it follows therefore that it must precede redevelopment when exercised. The acceptance by Ministers that failure to even attempt compliance by Stirling Council makes this policy a fraud. It says one thing and tolerates the extreme opposite and make pretence the official policy is honoured or that the official policy doesn’t matter.
The Crystal clear, unambiguous, emphatic, categorical Government policy I refer to has thirty-six words nine of which only have two letters. The people of Scotland have the reasonable expectation and right to know whether or not ‘Ministers’ that run the country understand the meaning of each of these words. Each word is unambiguous and enjoys a universal appreciation of understanding as to it’s meaning. This question has been asked but not answered and it is about time it was. I think it is the least Ministers can do is to assure the people they know what a policy means. “no worthwhile building of architectural or historic interest is lost to our environment unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of keeping it.”
“no worthwhile building of architectural or historic interest is lost” is a crystal clear and unambiguous categorical statement.
“Beyond all reasonable doubt” is a crystal clear and unambiguous categorical statement.
“that every effort” is a crystal clear and unambiguous categorical statement.
“has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of keeping it” is a crystal clear and unambiguous categorical statement.
For the Scottish Executive to do, as has been done, namely ignoring government policy, is nothing less than deceit and set alongside accusations of the planning system being used to enable fraud to succeed looks like collaboration on the part of Ministers/Historic Scotland.
Lord Penrose makes it clear in his Opinion that redevelopment constitutes the LOSS of the Museum Hall. ‘To lose the Museum Hall’ is a direct reference to redevelopment. Historic Scotland/Scottish Executive favour losing an important Historic Building Public Hall to favour wealthy developers and flat owners and deprive the community of their public hall whilst holding public purse strings that could assist restoration which in itself exposes the deceit of what the Court was told.
Historic Scotland/Ministers have demonstrated total disregard for Lord Penrose’s Opinion given that both know Lord Penrose was treated with contempt by a local authority that deceived the Court with falsehoods and the omission of material facts. The response as to why government policy has not been followed or attempted is, clearly, contempt for government policy. Don’t want to is not an adequate response. Not a single attempt to comply is the complete opposite of ‘every effort has been exerted by all concerned.
It is disingenuous of Scottish Executive/Ministers to ignore complaints of falsehoods deception and omission of material evidence whilst serving under the obligation of upholding the law, acting within the law, acting with ethical standards and probity of action and on top of that it/they confirm, as if true, that Historic Scotland Grants are small scale and insignificant.
It is said that respect is earned and not a right. Any surmised disrespect by me must be set against the case I have made in favour of ethical and legal standards and respect for the courts prevailing in order for respect to the people for the people and by the people to prevail in Scotland. The legal burden is on Ministers, MSPs and Civil Servants to uphold the law. Whilst convenient, accepting deception, falsehoods fraud and contempt of court as if legitimate is not an honourable thing to do. This abuse of everything public representatives and civil servants stand for is outrageous and all the more outrageous because the issue is a small public hall in a small Stirlingshire town; It therefore begs the question what do they get up to regarding big issues?
The culprits who have broken the law and the culprits who have been able to stop it but have not have in that stead held two fingers up to the concept of honourable conduct are not half witted young men of poor intelligence, intellectually challenged barely able to distinguish right from wrong but who are charged with wilfully destroying a Grade B Listed Building by vandalism. No, these people are obliged by law to uphold the law, these people are obliged to act with honesty and integrity, these people are highly paid, intellectually and mentally sound with the ability to distinguish right from wrong leaders of society who seek to cause, by their actions, the destruction of a Listed public hall but do so by abusing their position of trust and power in order to deceive a court, and by so doing display contempt for that court and the people of Scotland. Other people of similar distinction but on a much high level turn a blind eye and deaf ear to complaints of fraud, totally disregard their duty of honourable and ethical conduct and effectively seek to cover up the outrageous wrong doing of those below them.
1 comments:
davieinbridgie@btinternet.com
21st November, 2,007.
The Office of The First Minister
St. Andrew’s House,
Regent Road,
Edinburgh. COPY FOR INFO
EH1 3DG
Complaints Against ‘Ministers’
Complaint; Failing to abide by the definitions and obligations in the Scottish Executive Fraud Policy with regards the complaint of complicity in fraud I have made against Ministers.
Complaint; Failing to adjust Executive attitude and policy as to be in accord and commensurate with, the fraud policy previously referred to.
Complaint; Failing in the duty of care Ministers have regarding an Historic Building Listed by the Scottish Executive as Grade B and failing to protect the equality of designation of that official ‘heritage value’ grading within that category and allowing The Grade B Museum Hall to be re-designated in heritage value terms as of insufficient heritage value to attract lottery funding. That is to say the Grade B Museum Hall has, according to the Court of Session the same level of heritage value as a building with no Grade at all despite the Scottish Executives official Listing reflects a degree of equality of heritage value within each grade. A Grade B is as a Grade B anywhere and the Scottish Executive/Ministers are aware of the deception that enabled that re-designation.
Complaint; Failing to maintain integrity, probity and legal legitimacy in the Planning System for which the Scottish Executive are responsible. The planning system has been abused and rendered complicit in fraud by allowing it to be an active and essential component in the success of perpetrated fraud when the ability to stop that fraud and abuse of the system lay(s) with ‘Ministers.’
Complaint; Failing to recognise the Opinion of Lord Penrose regarding Listing on the grounds they have the certain knowledge that a Grade B is as a Grade B anywhere but refuse to recognise, in similar fashion, that the pivotal evidence removing the Museum Hall from eligibility for consideration by the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund was and is a falsehood despite arguing that the Museum Hall was/is eligible for such consideration and having ascertained from the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund that that is the case. It is reckless stupidity, if not a great deal worse, to defend as if legitimate what is known to be wrong when the subject is pertinent to the proper deliberations expected of Ministers in the execution of their duties.
Complaint; Failing to protect a Grade B Listed Building by failing to implement and uphold the Scottish Executive’s own crystal clear, unambiguous, categorical policy i.e. “no worthwhile building of architectural or historic interest is lost to our environment unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of keeping it.”
Complaint; Failing to show full and proper respect to and for an Official Repairs Order served on Stirling District Council and failing to recognise and concede the intent of that Order served by Historic Scotland on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland was to maintain the building in the same condition as was the case at the time of implementation of the Order and thereafter for failing to recognise and concede that such Orders cannot be served on buildings beyond viable restoration. Nor have Ministers recognised or conceded that the Museum Hall, obliged to be preserved by Official Order in a viable restorative state remains in a viable restorative state in consequence of the Official Repairs Order. The Order was imposed after years of civic neglect designed to cause as much damage as possible in order to get the result they wanted. The Arbiter of viable restoration was, of course, Historic Scotland!
Complaint; Ignoring The Opinion of Lord Penrose who asserts in Opinion that he is in no doubt that good use would be made of a restored Museum Hall and that the Museum Hall would be lost if redeveloped and that the Museum Hall would be ‘lost’ by redevelopment.
Complaint; Failing to have a means of ensuring the upholding of law is mandatory within the Scottish Executive and all sectors of the governance of Scotland and that accusations of lawbreaking be taken seriously and investigated and that every accusation is investigated by the appropriate authorities as the condition of service encompassed by the expression ‘uphold the law’ requires.
Complaint; Establishing as policy unlawful conduct as an acceptable means to an end in defiance of all that is ethical and all that is indicative or definitive of probity, in defiance of the Code of Conduct and in defiance of the law itself thereby exposing the judicial system to corrupt exploitation and recklessly allowing the Scottish Executive to being held to political or commercial ransom in future events and issues when it seeks to impose the obligations of ethics, probity and legality in other circumstances.
Complaint; Bringing the reputation of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive into disrepute in consequence of aforementioned complaints all of which remain unresolved.
Fraud does not vary or alternate between legal practise and illegal practise in consequence of location, date, perpetrator, friends, cronies or colleagues past or present, of perpetrators or the preference for a particular outcome by political and civil members of all or any form of government national or local by any which way methodology it/they can achieve.
There appears to be pretence on the part of Ministers that if they sanction the means of fraud succeeding they are not endorsing the fraud as if legitimate and ethical conduct and that by endorsing fraud they do not become complicit in that fraud when in fact they do.
One cannot surmise with the legitimacy of any defined legality someone knowingly providing the means of say fraud, or any other offence to claim innocence because they did not engage in the fraud or other offence themselves when first perpetrated but simply enabled it to progress to success whilst all the time having the choice of stopping it’s progress. Any component of a criminal act that is pivotal, that is to say, the crime cannot succeed without that component is, without a shadow of a doubt, complicit in the crime in question.
Numerous accusations of fraud made by me have been ignored or side stepped but not a single politician or civil servant has made the claim that the fraud that features in my accusation is not fraud. It therefore follows, even on the most elementary level of analyses that they, each and everyone, recognises the possibility of the accusation of fraud being actual fraud. This said they ignore what clearly they recognise as at the very least, as being possible. The only possible interpretation of this double standard is that regardless of whether it is fraud or not they are not going to oppose or investigate it. Apart from anything else this is deceit perpetrated on the people of Scotland which is supportive of unlawful conduct prevailing over the law, justice and natural justice and this is an arrogant affront to democracy.
When the possibility of fraud exists it cannot be ignored and covered up without those ignoring and covering up becoming involved in unethical and unlawful conduct. Presumably damage caused to an important Listed Building is criminal damage if the means by which damage was sanctioned was itself the sole means of ensuring success of a fraud that made all subsequent actions possible.
The First Minister, Ministers, MSPs, Civil Servants, Councillors, local authority Executives, Local Authority Planners and all other local authority staff are obliged to uphold the law. ‘Uphold’ is defined as to maintain or affirm in the face of a challenge. All codes of conduct require nothing less than the upholding of law and the maintenance of ethical standards and probity in conduct. A ‘challenge’ to the law has been made which involves Ministers either allowing that challenge to succeed or preventing it from enjoying success.
It is clear that Ministers unwillingness to maintain integrity in the legal and planning systems by turning a blind eye and deaf ear to complaints of public sector fraud requires the incentive in the form of penalty when refusing to uphold the law. Permitting fraud to succeed is not upholding the law. Assisting fraud to succeed, even by failing to act against it, is not upholding the law. Failing to have accusations of fraud investigated is not upholding the law. Failing to act on complaints of fraud also exposes the entire Scottish Executive to the suggestion that when fraud is ignored then so too there may be others, there may in fact be any number of frauds perpetrated. The is always a willingness on the part of many to think the Scottish Executive is rotten to the core, this failure to act only encourages such talk and the sad thing is that in this case there would be some justification. The fraud I allege is blatant, the actions of Stirling Council corresponds exactly to the terms of Scottish Executive Fraud Policy definitions and as if that wasn’t enough the CEO Historic Scotland has confirmed that the view given to the court and accepted by the court as true regarding the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund and indeed Historic Scotland Grants are the complete opposite to the truth.
The notion that MSPs and Ministers can use the expression ‘uphold the law’ as if a sound bite and ignore a challenge that undermines the integrity of judges, the integrity of courts, the integrity of laws and the integrity of the Scottish Parliament and it’s Executive is not only wholly absurd it subverts democracy by subverting the very bases of any democracy and that is justice.
The challenge to law I refer to is falsehood, deception and the omission of material evidence presented to a court in order deprive the people of Bridge of Allan and others in the wider Scottish community of the Listed Grade B Museum Hall Public Hall all of which is dependant for it coming to pass on the hands off approach by Ministers.
The Scottish Executive Fraud Policy definition of fraud is categorical, is unambiguous and is precise; “It is usually used to describe depriving someone of something by deceit” Scottish Executive Fraud Policy. Ministers argue with their own policy when their own policy asserts fraud has occurred and Ministers don’t give a damn.
It is shameful and disgraceful that Ministers and Executive staff set themselves up above the law as if rulers of some strange numtydom where law is made up by dictatorial whim and fancy when in fact Scotland has a proud heritage not just in our fine heritage including our public halls etc. but in our legal system as well. Treating fraud with a nod and a wink in order to protect decay in the system in the stead of seizing the opportunity to cut it out and make the system as clean as it can be is an absolute disgrace.
The cavalier attitude exercised so well by Ministers and those who represent and advise them in terms of the evading of responsibility for allowing a fraud to succeed whilst simultaneously endorsing a contempt of court and negation of government policy is not, by any standard, upholding the law.
I have sought, but not received, rational explanation of why falsehood, deception and the omission of material evidence is not, according to the Scottish Executive, fraud when that statement amounts to the entire bases of the definition used by the Scottish Executive to define Fraud.
Rational explanation as to why Ministers and civil servants defy the published terms of the Scottish Executive Fraud Policy has not been provided. Reasons why a fraud that requires their endorsement directly or indirectly does not involve them have not been made.
I have sought explanation and answer to the question how could such a fraud be successful without the endorsement/cooperation of every single stage of the planning system up to and including Ministers but no such explanation or answer has been provided nor can it be other than the Executive admit that this fraud can only succeed with the cooperation of Ministers in the Planning Process turning a blind eye and deaf ear to accusations of illegalities that by right of law demands rendering the planning permission null and void.
The planning process is totally flawed by the acceptance by Ministers that accusations of unlawful conduct do not have to be investigated and that the failure of the system in so much as legal obligation for those in the planning system to consider every complaint, objection or opinion was just simply ignored by Stirling Council and complaints to the Scottish Executive saw an intensive effort to ignore it as if it were either normal or of no legal consequence. Fraud is illegal, a planning process that only exists or existed because it was enabled by a fraudulent action of which the planning system is vital for the success of the fraud in question is therefore not a legal framework for a statutory procedure One cannot comply with a statutory procedure by breaking the law.
Explanation as to why contempt of Court that consequentially involves Ministers in Fraud which shames the Scottish Executive/Scottish Parliament and effectively waves two fingers at the Scottish People as if demonstrating we have power and we can do this if we want to – the law is just for the little people and we are the big guys on the Scottish Block and we can fix anything is of no concern to Ministers has not been provided despite every effort to attain.
Historical Note; The two finger gesture, a gesture of derision started when the English Long Bow with its unique construction had devastating effect on the French army. French prisoners taken were given the two finger gesture by their captors indicating the two fingers that pulled their bow strings enabling capture..
If the Scottish First Minister seeks a fair honest open and equal society he should seek Judicial Revue of their policy presently in practise and subject of this complaint that currently demonstrates the Scottish Executive gives endorsement to unlawful conduct as a justifiable means to an end. The Scottish First Minister will not, of course engage this simple solution because he, and all his Ministers know the answer without doing that, IF ONLY THEY WOULD ADMIT IT.
On any other occasion in the future when the Scottish Executive then seeks to assert unlawful conduct is not an acceptable means to an end this tragic and miserable farce will rear it’s ugly head again unless Ministers decide now that the honour of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament along with respect for the courts, the judiciary and the people of Scotland is worth more than pandering to a few local party members in Bridge of Allan and Stirling regardless of how distinguished they may be.
If the complaints of fraud are true it follows, therefore, that Ministers must exercise their right to ‘call in’ the planning application or ‘withdraw approval’ in the interest of legal obligations, ethical standards and the respect of probity which must form a conscious and visible respect for the law and for the public good of the wider public of Scotland. To argue, as appears to be the case, that fraud can be in the public interest is a complete derogation of responsibility, contempt for law and contempt for the definitions provided by the Scottish Executive Fraud Policy.
Scottish Executive Policy Statement
Friday, January 19, 2007
FRAUD
“7. Fraud can be perpetrated by persons outside as well as inside an organisation and by collusion. The criminal act is the attempt to deceive and attempted fraud is therefore treated as seriously as accomplished fraud. The term "fraud" is used to describe such acts as deception, bribery, forgery, extortion, corruption, theft, conspiracy, embezzlement, misappropriation, false representation, concealment of material facts, and collusion. It is usually used to describe depriving someone of something by deceit, which might either be straight theft or misuse of funds or other resources, or more complicated crimes like false accounting and the supply of false information.”
Explanation as to why my complaint to Stirling Council, part of the governance of this country and integral to the planning system for which Ministers are ultimately responsible against the planning application in question was ignored and civic contempt of regulations governing complaints was not considered pertinent or of concern to Historic Scotland/Ministers has not been provided. The legal obligation to consider all observations and complaints was ignored the planning procedure should have been halted there and then but it was not.
If you countenance connivance for convenience you countenance conspiracy. The complaint was made to the Planning Departments Complaints Procedure and each complaint emphasised with enlarged bold print and the complaints of falsehoods deception and questionable legality were ignored on the grounds that the council were unaware the complaints were complaints.
Provisions surrounding Statutory Advertisements regarding planning applications obliges views of any member of the public be taken into account and that means there is a Statutory Duty to read responses or complaints in response to the Statutory Advertisement. The Civil Service Code, The Code of Conduct for Councillors and the law require accusations of falsehoods and deception - fraud to be investigated. There is, in deed, a categorical assertion by the Scottish Executive all accusations will be investigated.
When Planners failed to take these accusations into account, when investigation of accusations did not occur, they endorsed, in the face of accusation, falsehood, deception and fraud as a legitimate part of a Statutory Planning Process. When they did not take these views into account the Planners failed in their duty under the law and so the planning process was flawed there and then.
Clearly if the regulations require all opinions to be taken into account and complaints challenging the legality of the process being employed are ignored and supervisory aspects of the Scottish Executive advising Ministers are aware of such complaint, and do not take heed or action, the probity of the entire planning process, up to and including ‘Ministers’ are entirely lost. Minister have a duty to ensure ethical standards and legal obligations are not compromised in any way. An accident is one thing but a fraud is another thing completely and it is inconceivable that Minister do not know this.
My complaint to Stirling Council intimated many views wholly supportive of restoring the Museum Hall as well as a precise and wholly accurate quote from Lord Penrose’s Opinion demonstrating his preference for restoration, condemnation of reducing it to ‘the lowest common denominator’ and acceptance that good and proper use would be made of the hall.
By the time of the planning application and my subsequent complaint the Council were in no doubt as to whether or not the Museum Hall was eligible for consideration by the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund and Historic Scotland Grants contrary to the evidence they provided to the Court of Session. Lottery Funds were sought and received to enhance privately owned Grade C houses, flats and business properties. I do, in fact, attribute Stirling Council with the ability to place B before C in a graduated alphabetical order but perhaps others may disagree.
It should be noted that I have faithfully reproduced many times the wholly accurate and in context Opinion of Lord Penrose favouring restoration and condemning redevelopment and that on every occasion the recipients of my complaints have treated his Opinion with contempt because they know the truth, they know what formed the conclusion in the judges Opinion was not the truth but was in fact total disregard for honesty that provided falsehood, deception and omission of material evidence.
One can only assume that those who openly display contempt for the judiciary and those who openly support that contempt for the judiciary do so, probably for the assured reason, that powerful people will protect them or that they are powerful people in effect, above the law.
The Scottish Executive has failed in it’s duty of care to consider the fragile legal position of the purchaser of property only made available for purchase by means of fraud and only purchased on condition planning permission is secured for the redevelopment of the property only made available by fraud and which would not be purchased without planning permission being granted or being ‘called in.’
Given the property in question is only available by means of fraud the planning permission, if denied or called in by the Scottish Executive would prevent fraud succeeding and the purchaser would not be vulnerable in the future to enforcing purchase agreements on a flat or flats as the vendor if would be vendee(s) became aware of the unstable legal foundations of the vendor or indeed in other ways where the rights of the purchaser were challenged.
My list of complaints and requests for Ministerial answers was sent to my MSP by Recorded Delivery. My MSP who had the assertion ‘Save our Halls’ in his Election Manifesto is of the same Party as Ministers and access to Ministers is/was therefore guaranteed. In the absence of proof to the contrary, I must assume my requests for information and complaints of fraud going without investigation were sent to Ministers. It is certainly the case that Minister Fabiani responded to confirm a view diametrically opposed to the influencing evidence presented to the Court of Session by Stirling Council. The Minister did mention Repairs Orders but appeared to be totally unaware of the Repairs Order or it’s function to which I referred to and was completely unconcerned as to complaints of fraud being the enabling factor of a planning application. The Repairs Order I referred to was the one served on Stirling District Council. This very limited and ill informed response was a long way short of answering all the issues raised in this complaint.
In the letters to my MSP I informed Ministers and asked questions but the absence of replies from Ministers could be the symptom of various possibilities but my letters, none the less, are intimations to Ministers of grievance regarding public sector fraud, failure to adhere to government policy, failure to respect the courts by failing to challenge the deception of the court and demands for proper ethical honourable conduct upholding the law. Legal status cannot be conferred on actions or functions enabled by unlawful conduct.
Strangely enough I wrote to my local councillor of the same party as my MSP and Ministers and he too failed to respond but again I must assume, in the absence of proof that he contacted our MSP and our MSP contacted Ministers. It is certainly the case that justice appears to take a lower level of importance than giving over our public hall that belongs and should serve to the benefit the many and not the interests of the few.
I don’t know, although I should do, whether or not my MSP and one of my Councillors acted without prejudice, with integrity and honour or not. If Ministers deny the contacts integrity and honour and acting without prejudice would require were made then they accuse these people of these ethical deficits. If they have been made, why have I not received the answers to the serious questions raised on my behalf? It may be that standards are very low but that is not an argument for failing to act against fraud.
The accusation of falsehood, deception and omission of material facts I make against Stirling Council are not complex. Stirling Council was asked about finances available to it regarding possible restoration of the Museum Hall. Stirling Council misled the court and omitted material evidence regarding the pivotal issue of finance available to the council.
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly, therefore, be unaware that the legal position regarding liability and the legal position regarding responsibility is Corporate and those departmental services and/or their budgets are not responsible or liable?
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly be unaware, therefore, of the existence of Stirling Council’s Corporate Capital Budget? The council executive certainly new before this question of finances and after this question of that there is/was no doubt. Public Council records will show Stirling Tolbooth was refurbished with one million pound from the council budgets along with external funding of over four million pounds.
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly be unaware, therefore, of the existence of a Corporate seven figure Contingency Budget?
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council for excellence would not know, therefore, the meaning of ‘Contingency,’ i.e. to cover the costs of unforeseen circumstances such as, say, a court, having heard the truth in evidence, denying the council right to alienate the Museum Hall from the Common Good and to reduce the hall to the lowest common denominator, perhaps indicating such redevelopment as an unattractive policy and suggesting the council commit it’s efforts to restoration!
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly consider, therefore, Historic Scotland grants providing 25/30% of a new roof, underpinning, internal works supporting the exterior, drainage, down-pipes etc. ‘small scale’ and of little significance.
Note: Historic Scotland/Scottish Executive Policy was effectively maligned in court but an Historic Scotland/Scottish Executive appears completely unconcerned and has not done anything to seek redress or amendment to a public record of the erroneous suggestion that Historic Scotland Grants are ‘small scale’ unless of course this is what they actually think.
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly consider, therefore that a substantial annual expense for roof repairs should feature in council evidence of ‘running costs’ for a restored hall with a new roof. The costs associated with restoration, quoted by the council, included a new roof.
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly consider, therefore that a building run as a charitable trust would get Rates Relief. Rates were included in the running costs identified by the Council.
It is inconceivable that a Stirling Council Executive representing the corporate body of the council who was warded the CBE, after success in court on behalf of Stirling Council, for excellence could possibly, therefore, believe that the Museum Hall, a Grade B Listed Public Building in the midst of an Outstanding Conservation Area has ‘insufficient heritage value’ to be eligible for consideration for funding from the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund when all Listed Buildings Grades are eligible?
Note; The National Lottery’s Heritage Fund was advised of the Opinion of the Court that they only funded Grade A Listed Buildings and of the assertions made by Stirling Council that formed the bases of the Court Opinion and declined to seek redress or amendment of the public record maligning or distorting it’s policy.
Given the Chief Executive of Historic Scotland has already established the Court was deceived because he holds a view regarding the National Lottery eligibility that is diametrically opposed to the view accepted by the Court (provided by Stirling Council) as honest and true. Given the Chief Executive of Historic Scotland acquired the certainty of precise accurate information regarding the National Lottery’s Heritage Fund from the Chair of Trustees of that organisation he discovered himself that the court was deceived. His actions on discovering this was not as ‘uphold the law’ would demand his actions however were contrary to what uphold the law requires in terms of action. It is inconceivable that a Chief Executive of Historic Scotland would be unaware of the Scottish Executive’s Fraud Policy and definitions of fraud especially when I quoted them to him.
Ministers and Historic Scotland say that the fraud of which I complain, that is the fraud that can only succeed if Ministers allow the Planning System to be used to enable success of the fraud has nothing to do with them. It is argued by Ministers or those responding for Ministers that because it involves the decision of a court Ministers and Historic Scotland are obliged therefore to allow the success of the fraud as if the court demands fraud prevails on it’s say so.
Who in this country would believe for one second that any member of the judiciary would condone fraud by virtue of the fact that deception and omission of material evidence was contemptuously exercised in the court’s jurisdiction resulting in the court, based on deceptive evidence, concluding in Opinion something other than the truth. If Ministers are in doubt they should seek judicial revue of whether or not a court deceived is a court content with deception in the belief that dishonesty is an honest endeavour.
A Court accepting views in good faith and belief honesty prevailed cannot be accused of knowingly supporting untruthful statements nor can it be held responsible for subsequent collaboration of the authorities in continuance of the fraud that collaboration is entirely attributable to the authorities in question.
Given that Ministers have not sought Judicial Revue it would appear that they believe that a fraud, no matter how big or how small, if committed by the contemptuous deceit of a bona fide properly constituted Court of Justice must be given respect as if it were the product of honesty, was compliant with all laws and as such fraud is a legal pursuit. Such a view by Executive Law Makers is of course unlawful.
The following suggestion is not facetious nor is it contemptuous, it is essential and it is a suggestion of great importance; Ministers and all concerned in the Scottish Executive, whether political or civil servant should ask themselves the question if I support falsehoods and deceptions what does that make me? If they are truthful with themselves and don’t like the only answer possible, they know who to blame for their own opinion and subsequent conduct and should understand when others blame them too.
According to Ministers/Historic Scotland, it requires a member of the public to ensure the probity, honesty and integrity of a Planning System under the management of Ministers and Historic Scotland. Allegedly there is not any mechanism or individual in the employ of the Scottish Executive that can handle complaints that Ministers are inveigled into complicity in fraud. This argument is an outrageous absurdity or an exposé of enormous proportions. The reality is that probity, honesty and integrity of the Planning System can only be restored by Ministers if it disallows the planning system from being used for enabling unlawful conduct to succeed or being tainted with deceit.
The law recognises the importance of those who enable success of dishonesty and unlawful conduct, why should Ministers enabling success of dishonesty and unlawful behaviour be any different from the general public, why indeed would anyone claiming integrity and honesty as appropriate accolades for their self description consider such enablement of success for fraud to be acceptable?
Ministers and Historic Scotland are acting as if the Opinion of Lord Penrose is in some way obliging them to approve a planning application, or to wave all normal conditions requiring a Statutory Planning Application to exercise integrity and probity or indeed to allow fraud to succeed. There appears to be a contention on the part of Ministers and Historic Scotland that the three or four pages of Opinion was Lord Penrose rambling without thought or care for what he was saying and/or that everything other than the conclusion he made (having accepted evidence as honest and true) is his Opinion. Why then is his Opinion described as his Opinion at the beginning and not solely at the conclusion? Meanwhile, the Scottish Executive confirm the court was deceived by holding a view diametrically opposed to what the court was told which was accepted in good faith as if honest and true.
Extract from the Opinion of Lord Penrose demonstrating restoration to be more desirable than loss of the Museum Hall through redevelopment.
“I am not satisfied the building had become redundant by the time it was closed, nor that it would not attract appropriate community uses if it were restored. Mr Woolman’s* findings on the potential uses of the hall illustrates a wide range of community and cultural which could be served if the hall were restored. It would have a practical use in the community in the local and in the wider community. Nor am I persuaded that it is material that Bridge of Allan is better served by the provision of recreational and cultural facilities than other districts in the Petitioners area. The argument that in comparison with other districts, Bridge of Allan can somehow afford to lose the Museum Hall because of other facilities which exist there is some what lacking in taste as well as being irrelevant to the central issue. If a community has developed and had the benefit of wide range of facilities over it’s historical life it is likely that that has been the product of local pride and the application of locally generated resources. Reduction of all to the lowest common denominator is not an attractive policy.”
Lord Penrose – Court of Session
NOTE: Lord Penrose makes it clear in his Opinion that redevelopment constitutes the LOSS of the Museum Hall. “The argument that in comparison with other districts, Bridge of Allan can somehow afford to lose the Museum Hall because of other facilities which exist there is some what lacking in taste as well as being irrelevant to the central issue.” To lose the Museum Hall’ is a direct reference to redevelopment. Reduction of all to the lowest common denominator is not an attractive policy” is a reference to Flats Redevelopment. That is the Opinion of Lord Penrose so why is it not the view of Ministers given Ministers have access to the truth that he was denied?
Ministers ignore what they know to be true
and support with action that which they know to be untrue.
How on earth can this be ethical conduct? Minister Fabiani confirms The National Lottery’s Heritage Fund is a possible source of funding but Minister support the conclusion of Lord Penrose in Opinion that asserts it is not. This acceptance of the product of deception as bona fide conduct creates a legitimacy for deception the consequence of which, in this case, is the alienation of a Grade B Listed Public Hall from the common good simply in order for it to be destroyed for the benefit of a privileged few at the expense of the many.
Ministers have failed in their duty to uphold the law and should seek Judicial Revue of the current Scottish Executive Policy of accepting Falsehood and Deception as legitimate forms of evidence and valid reason for the destruction of a Listed Building in the midst of an Outstanding Conservation Area that is protected by laws affording protection from unlawful conduct. Ministers should let us all see if the Courts agree with their ridiculous and dangerous concept of ethical standards and honourable conduct.
Ministers confirm key points of evidence are wholly and totally wrong but still they sit on their hands rather than get them clean by demanding ethical and honourable conduct prevails and our Courts have their protection as opposed to their present efforts that inevitably undermine the entire concept of honesty before the Courts, endanger justice as a right and expose Scotland to ethical and legal degeneration.
Meanwhile Ministers know that in every community in Scotland there is need and appreciation of community halls. Lord Penrose makes mention of local pride in his Opinion; “If a community has developed and had the benefit of wide range of facilities over it’s historical life it is likely that that has been the product of local pride and the application of locally generated resources. Reduction of all to the lowest common denominator is not an attractive policy.” Ministers ignore this part of Lord Penrose’s Opinion albeit they know it to be true.
Another part of the Opinion of Lord Penrose ignored by Ministers is as follows “I am not satisfied the building had become redundant by the time it was closed, nor that it would not attract appropriate community uses if it were restored. Mr Woolman’s* findings on the potential uses of the hall illustrates a wide range of community and cultural which could be served if the hall were restored. It would have a practical use in the community in the local and in the wider community. Nor am I persuaded that it is material that Bridge of Allan is better served by the provision of recreational and cultural facilities than other districts in the Petitioners area.
Ministers also ignore the Opinion of Lord Penrose when he asserts “Reduction of all to the lowest common denominator is not an attractive policy.” In effect, Lord Penrose is referring to Ministers policy albeit the Ministers Policy is the blind acceptance of Stirling Council’s Policy without so much as the courtesy of reading the Opinion of Lord Penrose or the integrity of challenging dishonesty with the truth.
Ministers should know Lord Penrose favoured, in Opinion, restoration to and for, the public use: Ministers know, as fact, that the Museum Hall is eligible for consideration of Lottery Funding and that such is diametrically opposed to what the Court was convinced of being the case. Ministers know that Stirling Council has a Corporate Capital Budget of millions of pounds; Ministers know or can confirm that Stirling Council have a Contingency Budget over a million pounds per year; Ministers know as fact Historic Scotland Grants are worthwhile and are not what could normally be called ‘small scale;’ Ministers know that funding was the pivotal issue before the Court of Session, and Ministers know the Court was deceived. Probity of action cannot be founded on illicit or illegal foundations.
If Ministers have any regard for justice, honesty, integrity or indeed the Opinion of Lord Penrose’ his favoured option would be honoured with compliance given that Ministers know the truth that Lord Penrose was denied.. It is clear, however, that cash for dishonour should be allowed to prevail is presently the favoured option by Ministers despite the inevitable contempt of court, falsehoods, deception and concealment of material facts expose whilst at the same time Ministers hold the knowledge that such cash for dishonour cannot materialise as successful without their support.
NOT AT ANY TIME HAS STIRLING COUNCIL, HISTORIC SCOTLAND OR MINISTERS DENIED FRAUD HAS OCCURRED OR THAT THE PLANNING SYSTEM HAS BEEN USED, OR ABUSED, AS AN ENABLING MECHANISM FOR FRAUD TO SUCCEED OR THAT SUCCESS OF THE UN-DENIED FRAUD COULD SUCCEED WITHOUT MINISTERS GIVING APPROVAL OR REFUSING TO ‘CALL IN’ OR WITHDRAW IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE. PROCEEDING IN THE FACE OF ACCUSATION, WITHOUT DENIAL, IS, IN EFFECT, AN ADMISSION THAT THE ACCUSATION IS TRUE.
Kenny MacAskill MSP responded recently in newspapers to Opinion giving Prisoners the vote asserting, against the Opinion “This is utter nonsense. The European Convention on Human Rights should be about protecting people from cruelty, harm and ensuring equality for law abiding citizens, not giving the franchise to those who do not respect the law and commit serious offences." I assert that Ministers are giving Stirling Council franchise do disrespect the law and exercise Contempt of Court. As a Minister, does Mr. MacAskill favour the people who disrespect the law and commit serious offences undermining the law abiding citizens of Bridge of Allan and elsewhere throughout Scotland who expect, as of right, one law for all and equality before the law?
If one gives support for fraud whilst holding a position that can stop that fraud progressing to success and fails to do so one fails, by any measure, the most basic test of integrity, honesty and probity.
Ministers have failed to ensure that government policy which is crystal clear and armed with emphatic categorical statements be observed. Given that it is impossible to exercise the government policy after redevelopment it follows therefore that it must precede redevelopment when exercised. The acceptance by Ministers that failure to even attempt compliance by Stirling Council makes this policy a fraud. It says one thing and tolerates the extreme opposite and make pretence the official policy is honoured or that the official policy doesn’t matter.
The Crystal clear, unambiguous, emphatic, categorical Government policy I refer to has thirty-six words nine of which only have two letters. The people of Scotland have the reasonable expectation and right to know whether or not ‘Ministers’ that run the country understand the meaning of each of these words. Each word is unambiguous and enjoys a universal appreciation of understanding as to it’s meaning. This question has been asked but not answered and it is about time it was. I think it is the least Ministers can do is to assure the people they know what a policy means.
“no worthwhile building of architectural or historic interest is lost to our environment unless it is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that every effort has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of keeping it.”
“no worthwhile building of architectural or historic interest is lost” is a crystal clear and unambiguous categorical statement.
“Beyond all reasonable doubt” is a crystal clear and unambiguous categorical statement.
“that every effort” is a crystal clear and unambiguous categorical statement.
“has been exerted by all concerned to find practical ways of keeping it” is a crystal clear and unambiguous categorical statement.
For the Scottish Executive to do, as has been done, namely ignoring government policy, is nothing less than deceit and set alongside accusations of the planning system being used to enable fraud to succeed looks like collaboration on the part of Ministers/Historic Scotland.
Lord Penrose makes it clear in his Opinion that redevelopment constitutes the LOSS of the Museum Hall. ‘To lose the Museum Hall’ is a direct reference to redevelopment. Historic Scotland/Scottish Executive favour losing an important Historic Building Public Hall to favour wealthy developers and flat owners and deprive the community of their public hall whilst holding public purse strings that could assist restoration which in itself exposes the deceit of what the Court was told.
Historic Scotland/Ministers have demonstrated total disregard for Lord Penrose’s Opinion given that both know Lord Penrose was treated with contempt by a local authority that deceived the Court with falsehoods and the omission of material facts. The response as to why government policy has not been followed or attempted is, clearly, contempt for government policy. Don’t want to is not an adequate response. Not a single attempt to comply is the complete opposite of ‘every effort has been exerted by all concerned.
It is disingenuous of Scottish Executive/Ministers to ignore complaints of falsehoods deception and omission of material evidence whilst serving under the obligation of upholding the law, acting within the law, acting with ethical standards and probity of action and on top of that it/they confirm, as if true, that Historic Scotland Grants are small scale and insignificant.
It is said that respect is earned and not a right. Any surmised disrespect by me must be set against the case I have made in favour of ethical and legal standards and respect for the courts prevailing in order for respect to the people for the people and by the people to prevail in Scotland. The legal burden is on Ministers, MSPs and Civil Servants to uphold the law.
Whilst convenient, accepting deception, falsehoods fraud and contempt of court as if legitimate is not an honourable thing to do. This abuse of everything public representatives and civil servants stand for is outrageous and all the more outrageous because the issue is a small public hall in a small Stirlingshire town; It therefore begs the question what do they get up to regarding big issues?
The culprits who have broken the law and the culprits who have been able to stop it but have not have in that stead held two fingers up to the concept of honourable conduct are not half witted young men of poor intelligence, intellectually challenged barely able to distinguish right from wrong but who are charged with wilfully destroying a Grade B Listed Building by vandalism. No, these people are obliged by law to uphold the law, these people are obliged to act with honesty and integrity, these people are highly paid, intellectually and mentally sound with the ability to distinguish right from wrong leaders of society who seek to cause, by their actions, the destruction of a Listed public hall but do so by abusing their position of trust and power in order to deceive a court, and by so doing display contempt for that court and the people of Scotland. Other people of similar distinction but on a much high level turn a blind eye and deaf ear to complaints of fraud, totally disregard their duty of honourable and ethical conduct and effectively seek to cover up the outrageous wrong doing of those below them.
Post a Comment