

Copyright © 2016 by Nostaple Limited

All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: This is not a work of fiction. As such, the publisher has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information within this book was correct at time of publication. The publisher does not assume and hereby disclaims any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from accident, negligence, or any other cause. The publisher will be pleased to make good any omissions or rectify any mistakes brought to the publisher's attention at the earliest opportunity. Any views and opinions expressed herein are fully endorsed by the publisher. The publisher will, at the publisher's own expense, defend any claim based upon any lawsuit brought against any content contained within this book.

Licensing Note: No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without the express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief excerpts in critical reviews or articles. All inquiries should be addressed to Nostaple Limited, website click here.

First Edition

Other books by Nostaple Limited:

The Justify This series:

Justify This 2006 - 2007

Justify This 2007 - 2008

Justify This 2008 - 2010

Justify This 2010 - 2011

Justify This 2011 - 2015

The Justify This series of books is a blow by blow account of one person's true story of alleged discrimination in the workplace, leading to legal cases against a multinational employer and international countries, through local courts, national courts, international courts, and the United Nations.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Chapter 12

Chapter 13

Chapter 14

Chapter 15

Chapter 1

"Those who commit injustice bear the greatest burden."

\- Hosea Ballou, 1771-1852

In 1966, I, Kenneth Robert McAlpine, was diagnosed with type one diabetes aged eighteen months. Despite having to inject myself with insulin twice a day, I had managed to obtain a degree in engineering and a master's degree in computing, but for the last two years had been unemployed and fighting an unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claim in the Tribunal system.

During the last two years of working at Oracle, I had worked as an On Demand Service Delivery Manager, known as an oSDM, and was the seventh longest serving oSDM in a team of fourteen. I had worked with three other oSDMs on two of the largest accounts in Europe Middle East and Africa, The Environment Agency and General Electric accounts, which amounted to approximately sixty percent of the work covered by the fourteen oSDMs. As I was the only oSDM working simultaneously on both of these very large accounts, I asked my manager and director in December 2005 to be taken off one of the two accounts, as the workload and work conflicts were affecting my health.

In April 2006, unknown to myself, my manager, Phil Snowden, sent an email to a senior director, which Human Resources was copied on, and which read:

"With either option, there is the possibility of Kenneth raising the health/stress issue that he discussed with me in December – the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06? If a meeting to discuss this is the best option to move this forward, then please let me know, and I will organise such a meeting."

To which a Senior Human Resources manager, Catherine Temple, replied:

"As Kenneth is on the RIF list, I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing (ie: no requirement for back office in the OSDM team). I have no timescales for when redundancies will be actioned at the moment, but assume it will be anytime around end FY06/beginning FY07."

I had taken just two days sick leave in the previous two years, the average person in the UK takes eleven days sick leave every year.

Towards the end of May 2006, I received a phone call from Phil Snowden to attend a meeting at the nearest office. At this meeting, with a senior director I had never met, I was informed I had been provisionally selected for redundancy. I was officially made redundant just over a month later.

I lodged a claim of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination with the Employment Tribunal in August 2006. During the next six months, the respondent would alter their original response a number of times, as they realised how much evidence I had to dispute previous attempts to discredit me. In other words, they were fishing for information before finalising their story.

It was also no surprise that I had received two offers to settle this before it went to a full Tribunal hearing, but both offers were below or around what I could expect for unfair dismissal alone, and the amount a Tribunal can award in discrimination claims is unlimited. So it was prudent to refuse both offers.

One thing about multinational companies and multinational legal firms is that there is no shortage of cash, so it was not a surprise when I learned that the respondent would be represented by a London Barrister at the Tribunal hearing.

To my surprise, part of the discrimination claim referred to as reasonable adjustments was thrown out at a Pre-Hearing Review in March 2007. I requested a review that was not granted, and then appealed the decision to Appeal Tribunal.

There was also a sist for mediation for fifty-one days, requested by the respondent, to allow the respondent and myself to try and mediate and reach a settlement. The respondent did not mediate during the whole fifty-one days.

At numerous points before the hearing, I had applied to the Tribunal for a default judgment or for the respondent to be debarred from the proceedings for various reasons.

Shortly before the main hearing was due to commence in early July 2007, there were problems with documents and evidence being altered, witness statements not being signed, and witness statements being far removed from the truth.

During the main discrimination hearing, which lasted three days, I read out my witness statement on the first day, the second day comprised of the respondent's Barrister trying to discredit me in cross-examination, and the third day comprised of the respondent's witnesses, my manager, Phil Snowden, my senior director, Nick Cooper, and senior human resources manager, Catherine Temple, as well as other witness statements.

The main discrimination judgment was dated the 13 September 2007. In the judgment that was delivered over thirty-eight pages, the Tribunal agreed with the story of the respondent that comprised mainly of four witness statements from witnesses employed by the respondent, despite hard factual evidence that disproved the story and the subsequent decisions made in the judgment.

The Tribunal had hard factual evidence that showed I had the job title "Service Delivery Manager", had worked with the Global Service Desk and Customer Incident Managers (CIMs) for two years, I had taken just two days sickness absence in the previous two years, and also had hard factual evidence supplied by the respondent of disability discrimination that  stated:

"With either option, there is the possibility of Kenneth raising the health/stress issue that he discussed with me in December – the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

"As  Kenneth is on the RIF list, I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing...."

Despite this hard factual evidence, the respondent managed to create a story whereby I was in a one-off job role, that a senior manager I had never met before, Malcolm Thompson, placed me on the redundancy list, and who never knew of my diabetes. Malcolm Thompson never attended the Tribunal.

I also raised concerns before, during and after the Tribunal that the respondent had altered documents to suit their story, but the judgment stated that I was not "a credible witness in many aspects of his evidence", and the Citizens Advice Bureau stated that this was the Tribunal calling me a liar. The Tribunal dismissed the concerns raised regarding altered documents:

"We concluded from the above that the claimant's allegation was unfounded and that the respondent had not deliberately altered, amended or removed documentation from the bundle of productions"

The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal part of the claim:

"We were satisfied the requirements of the respondent's business for employees to carry out the role the claimant did, had ceased or diminished with the introduction of the global service desk and CIMs. The claimant's role was redundant."

The Tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination part of the claim:

"We were satisfied, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, that the reason for the claimant's selection for redundancy (the alleged less favourable treatment) was because the respondent's need for employees to carry out the limited oSDM role which the claimant performed, had ceased or diminished. The claimant had been unable to discharge the burden placed on him to show his selection for redundancy related to his disability, and in the circumstances that aspect of his claim must fail. We dismissed this claim."

After emailing Diabetes UK requesting help, I received an email reply on 10 October 2007 stating that Diabetes UK would pass it on to one of their lawyers who would act in a pro bono capacity and help me.

I immediately made contact with this pro bono lawyer in London and sent two lever arch folders full of witness statements and evidence as well as my story and where the various parts of this case were in the legal system.

The London lawyer, due to her background in healthcare and product liability litigation managed to get in touch with a lawyer in Glasgow who specialised in Employment Law and was willing to take my case on in a pro bono capacity.

Michael McLaughlin was the pro bono lawyer in Glasgow who was a senior partner in Biggart Bailli, a law firm with offices in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and I quickly had a three hour meeting to inform Michael of some of the details in this case, and to thrash out appeal points for the forthcoming reasonable adjustments hearing and the lodging of an appeal concerning the main disability discrimination appeal.

On 24 October 2007, I picked up the main disability discrimination appeal at Michael McLaughlin's Office and delivered it in person at the Employment Appeal Tribunal Offices in Edinburgh, a round trip of four hours, but worth every minute to make sure it was delivered in person.

The first point of this appeal concerned the emails written on 11 and 12 April 2006, which state that diabetes will result in long periods of absence in the future and to exit me from the business. This was direct disability discrimination as it was less favourable treatment on the grounds of disability.

The second appeal point again concerned the email of 12 April 2006 in that because this email states that I am to be exited from business some seven weeks before I was provisionally selected for redundancy, the redundancy process was a sham.

The third point of this appeal concerned witness collusion. Many of the witnesses had read each other's witness statements, and as such could have tailored or fine tuned their story to match the stories of other witnesses.

The final appeal point stated that the 7 February 2006 Reduction In Force list had a column titled "Required Exit Date" that had a date filled in, and as such, termination of my employment was preordained some four months before redundancy consultation had started.

After my initial meeting with the pro bono lawyer, Michael McLaughlin, an appeal was sent to the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning the reasonable adjustments part of my case.

The appeal focussed on one extremely important point, as the Tribunal had dismissed my reasonable adjustments case because I had not lodged a grievance, and as I was dismissed, the statutory grievance procedure did not apply because the statutory dismissal procedure should have been followed. The reasonable adjustments case was also not time barred, as it had been an ongoing act of discrimination that started in December 2005 and was linked to my dismissal in July 2006 by the emails of 12 and 13 April 2006.

On 7 November 2007 I conducted my reasonable adjustments appeal hearing in front of Lady Smith who was acting as sole Judge in this hearing.

I outlined in my appeal that due to my reasonable adjustments discussion with my manager, Philip Snowden, in December 2005, and the reference to 'December' in the email which stated diabetes, future sickness absences and exit me from the organisation, the statutory grievance procedure did not apply as I was dismissed, and the reasonable adjustments claim could not be time barred as it was an ongoing act of discrimination that started in December 2005 and ended with my dismissal in July 2006.

The Judge, Lady Smith, dismissed the appeal and agreed with the original Employment Tribunal decision that the statutory grievance procedure applied.

The respondent had applied for costs of £10,000, and on 11 January 2008, a costs hearing took place at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal. The respondent claimed that my conduct during the case had been unreasonable and that my allegation that documents had been altered should alone result in a costs order against me.

Michael McLaughlin outlined that I had not acted unreasonably, and if any party had acted unreasonably it was the respondent. It was also not unreasonable to state that documents had been altered when they had been altered.

The judgment of the Glasgow Employment Tribunal would be sent out in writing in the near future.

During January and February 2008 I continued to contact as many organisations and people who could help me as possible, but continually met with rejections or dead ends.

On 15 February 2008, I finally received the judgment of the Glasgow Employment Tribunal who had awarded expenses against me of £3,700, in effect fining me. An Employment Tribunal only awards expenses against a party in less than one percent of cases.

On 20 February 2008, after one month of trying to lodge an appeal at the Court of Session in Edinburgh in time, I decided to take this appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, as the Court of Session had sent me out three wrong forms and now wanted me to pay for lodging a late appeal that the Judges may not accept.

On 26 March 2008, I lodged an appeal against the award of £3,700 in costs against me to the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal. The appeal was based solely on the grounds of perversity.

The first appeal point concerned the award of £3,000 for not taking legal advice, and as you can represent yourself at Tribunals, I simply asked where in the Employment Tribunals Constitution and Rules does it state that a claimant must take legal advice.

The second point of the appeal concerned the award of £700 for stating that the respondent had altered documents, and as the judgment had stated that the respondent "had not deliberately altered documents", I simply asked why the term "not deliberately altered" had been used, as this implies the respondent had altered documents.

On 29 April 2008, myself, my family and three lawyers had travelled through to the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal for the Rule 3(10) Hearing in front of Lady Smith alone, but we all learned ten minutes before the hearing was due to start that it had been cancelled.

Around two months later the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal for the Rule 3(10) Hearing on disability discrimination finally took place on 20 June 2008 with the judge Lady Smith sitting in judgement alone. This was a tense and terse hearing between the Solicitor, Michael McLaughlin, and Lady Smith, with the Solicitor, myself and family coming out looking shell shocked.

Early in August 2008, Diabetes UK sent me a letter clearly stating that they were unable to support me any further in my case.

On 12 August 2008, I lodged a reasonable adjustments case against the United Kingdom at the European Court of Human Rights. This case was mainly based on the right to a fair hearing when the previous reasonable adjustment cases had been thrown out because a grievance had not been lodged when a grievance was not required to be lodged because it was a dismissal and the dismissal procedure should have been followed rather than the grievance procedure.

Two days later the Information Commissioner's Office sent me a review of my complaint against their original decision in which they explained that they agreed with the earlier decision made by the Information Commissioner's Office that I was not entitled to any redundancy information, so I was, therefore, unable to uncover whether redundancy information had been sent to the Insolvency Service or not, and therefore whether there had actually been a collective redundancy, or if it was just me that had been made redundant due to my diabetes. Around this time I was also looking to get representation from an Advocate (lawyer who has access rights in front of the highest judges in the highest court) for the appeal to the Court of Session, the highest court in Scotland, and paid for the services of law firm Hamilton Burns who requested the opinion of an Advocate.

On 18 August 2008 the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal refused me leave to appeal to the Court of Session, however, this is only a step that you have to go through to eventually appeal to the Court of Session, and doesn't mean that you cannot appeal.

Ten days later I received the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal judgement by Lady Smith on disability discrimination where she had dismissed all appeal points on the disability discrimination case and witness collusion, so now I had to appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session, which I now did.

On 6 November 2008 the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal heard my appeal against the costs of £3700 awarded against me at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal by judge Lucy Crone. This hearing was heard by the President of the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, who was based in London, but had flown up because Lady Smith was unavailable.

Later that same month I received the Advocates opinion which was completely negative on the chances of any of the eleven appeal points succeeding at the Court of Session, and had to pay £1000 for the opinion in writing.

It was now 2009, and the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal issued a judgement by the president of the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal, The Honourable Mr Justice Elias, who stated that the appeal had failed. The reason given was that I should have taken the free legal advice offered and paid for by Oracle Corporation UK Limited, and because I didn't, this was unreasonable behaviour punished by a £3000 fine. It has always been my argument, an argument that will never change, that no-one should, under any circumstance, accept legal advice from a lawyer paid for by your opponent. Whose interests would that lawyer really be representing?

On 10 February 2009 the Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal refused me leave to appeal to the Court of Session regarding the costs appeal, so I most definitely appealed anyway.

Over the next few months, I wrote a few letters to the Scottish Parliament but received no help with the explanation that they could not get involved in judicial decisions. I also started to question why on earth Oracle Corporation UK Limited could be represented at a hearing in the Inner House of the Court of Session when I was appealing a decision made in a judgement by the Employment Appeal Tribunal?

I also asked my Member of Parliament for help, and she wrote to various government departments and ministers, including the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom parliament and Minister for Community Safety in the Scottish parliament, but no help was offered or given.

On 29 May 2009, I attended a very short hearing at the Inner House of the Court of Session, where I had to represent myself against the Advocate Douglas Fairley who was representing Oracle Corporation UK Limited. The three judges heard Mr Fairley for most of this time and informed me if I understood what I had to do at the next hearing, to which I replied yes.

At the next hearing at the Inner House of the Court of Session, a two-hour hearing, Mr Fairley, acting for Oracle Corporation UK Limited, addressed the Court in support of his objection to the competency of the application for one and a half hours, and I spoke for around twenty minutes. Another hearing was scheduled for a full day hearing, date to be arranged.

The final full day hearing at the Court of Session took place on 27 January 2010. I spoke for most of this hearing and read out the law and merits of my appeal, which included eleven points on disability discrimination, altered and fabricated evidence, witness collusion and perjury. These appeal points were also based on UK Law as well as articles on the European Convention on Human Rights as the European Courts and appeals on conventions were almost my next step if this appeal failed.

The Court of Session judgement dismissed all eleven appeal points, including the disability discrimination part of the appeal.

I contacted the Equality and Human Rights Commission again, requesting help to take this appeal to the UK Supreme Court, but yet again was refused any help. During this time I also tried to find a Barrister by myself but could not find a Barrister to take this case on.

The law firm McGrigors, who had represented Oracle Corporation UK Limited at the Court of Session, started the process of claiming expenses for Oracle Corporation UK Limited from me for the costs incurred at the Court of Session during the various hearings.

At this point in time, I also started to contact the United Nations Enable organisation, an organisation to promote the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.

Shortly after receiving the judgement from the Court of Session, I contacted the UK Supreme Court in London but was later informed that the UK Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination and unfair dismissal appeal.

Around this time I also started to contact international disability organisations to try and obtain representation for any appeals to any international bodies. Although I did not obtain any representation or any help to write any international appeals on any of the international conventions, I was able to ask a few questions of these international disability organisations.

I then sent a communication, another word for an appeal, to the European Court of Human Rights, against the United Kingdom, regarding my case and subsequent appeals through the United Kingdom legal system. This appeal was based on articles of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning, among others, discrimination and the right to a fair hearing. It was based on the disability discrimination I had suffered, and the altered and fabricated evidence, as well as witness collusion and perjury.

The Court of Session had a short ten minute hearing on expenses against me, which I did not attend, and subsequently awarded expenses against me, so I now had to pay the law firm McGrigors and Oracle Corporation UK Limited expenses for the various appeal hearings at the Court of Session.

I finally received the decision of the Financial Ombudsman Service, who found in favour of Lloyds, the underwriters of my home insurance policy, which should have covered legal representation and expenses during my whole case, but didn't.

Around this time I was informed by a neighbour that Sheriff Officers had been on my street looking for me, regarding payment of the Employment Tribunal award of costs, and the Court of Session award of expenses, although nobody knew the award of expenses at the Court of Session at this time, as no decision had been made by the Auditor of the Court of Session yet as to the amount of expenses. I was also appealing all awards of costs and expenses, and this was ongoing either at the Auditor of the Court of Session or the European Court of Human Rights.

I was also raising questions as to why Oracle Corporation UK Limited were represented by the law firm McGrigors at appeal hearings against a decision made by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the Inner House of the Court of Session.

A case was raised with the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission against three lawyers at the law firm McGrigors and also the Auditor of the Court of Session. This case concerned why Sheriff Officers had been instructed to recover all costs and expenses awarded against me even although the Auditor of the Court of Session had not even made a decision regarding the amount of expenses that would be awarded against me, and also why Sheriff Officers were chasing these costs and expenses when there were still outstanding and future appeal hearings at the Auditor of the Court of Session and the European Court of Human Rights.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission found that none of the lawyers, including the Auditor of the Court of Session, were guilty of any misconduct or offence.

The diet of taxation hearing (expenses hearing) was then heard by the Auditor of the Court of Session, who decided that Oracle Corporation UK Limited, represented by the law firm McGrigors, had won approximately £7,000.00 in expenses, which I had now to pay.

The European Court of Human Rights threw out my disability discrimination and unfair dismissal case against the United Kingdom, as well as my reasonable adjustments case, sitting in a single-judge formation, the single judge coming from Malta, part of the Commonwealth of Nations (formerly the British Commonwealth).

I paid the £7,000.00 to Oracle Corporation UK Limited via the law firm McGrigors.

Chapter 2

It was now 25 May 2011 when I sent the following communication (appeal) to the United Nations:

Procedure Invoked: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Date: 25 May 2011

I. Information on the Complainant

Provided name, nationality, date and place of birth and address.

I, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine, being the sole author of this communication, submit this communication on my own behalf.

II. State concerned/Articles violated

State against which complaint is made:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Alleged Articles Violated:

Articles 4, 5, 8, 12, 22 and 27.

III. Exhaustion of domestic remedies/Application to other international procedures

Employment Tribunal

The claims made to the Employment Tribunal were unfair dismissal and disability discrimination under section 3A(1) and 3A(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act.

On 13 September 2007, the Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims, including disability discrimination (Page 35).

Employment Appeal Tribunal

On 19 December 2007 and 28 August 2008, the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal from the decision of the Employment Tribunal, including disability discrimination (Pages  74 and  86).

Court of Session

On 12 February 2010, the Court of Session dismissed the appeal from the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, including disability discrimination (Page 95).

UK Supreme Court

On 12 February 2010, the UK Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the decision of the Court of Session, including disability discrimination (Page 97).

European Court of Human Rights

The application submitted to the European Court of Human Rights alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights Article 14 in conjunction with other Articles, and Article 6(1).

On 22 March 2011, the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible this application, including disability discrimination (Page 98).

IV. Facts of the complaint

Introduction

The Petitioner, acting as an individual, brings an individual communication relating to the United Kingdom under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("Convention").

The United Kingdom, having signed the Convention on 30 March 2007, and ratified the Convention on 8 June 2009, and also signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on 26 February 2009, and ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on 7 August 2009 without any reservations, thereby allowing individuals under the Optional Protocol, Article 1, to bring, and the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the United Kingdom jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by the United Kingdom to the provisions of the Convention.

Chronology of Events

12 August 1964

Petitioner born in United Kingdom.

February 1966

Petitioner diagnosed as having Diabetes Mellitus (Type 1 diabetes).

8 November 1995

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 comes in to force in United Kingdom.

12 August 1998

Petitioner starts employment with Oracle Corporation UK Limited.

5 July 2004

Petitioner moves to On Demand as a Service Delivery Manager (oSDM) in the On Demand Service Delivery Manager team.

12 April 2006

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd states in email that diabetes results in prolonged periods of time off due to illness (Page 19). The Petitioner did not have high blood pressure.

13 April 2006

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd states that the Petitioner is to be made redundant (fired) due to perceived future sickness absence (Page 20).

30 May 2006

Petitioner is provisionally selected for redundancy.

10 July 2006

Petitioner is made redundant (fired) from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd (Page 23).

25 August 2006

Petitioner applies to Employment Tribunal stating unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

13 September 2007

Employment Tribunal dismiss all claims, including disability discrimination (Page 35).

28 August 2008

Employment Appeal Tribunal dismiss all appeal points, including disability discrimination (Pages  74 and  86)

12 February 2010

Court of Session dismisses all appeal points, including disability discrimination (Page 95).

12 February 2010

UK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear appeal, including disability discrimination (Page 97).

22 March 2011

European Court of Human Rights declares inadmissible application, including disability discrimination (Page 98).

Admissibility

(i) I am not acting on behalf of another person.

(ii) I am a direct victim of the alleged violations, and the law, policy, practice, act or omission of the United Kingdom personally and directly affects me.

(iii) In the section within this document entitled "Merits", I have outlined alleged violations that relate to a right actually protected by the Convention.

(iv) In the section within this document entitled "Merits", I believe that I have sufficiently substantiated the facts of my complaint and the arguments relating to alleged violations of the Convention.

(v) The events connected with this complaint have extended into the period covered by the complaint mechanism.

In the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 2(f) states that communications will be declared inadmissible when:

(f) The facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State Party concerned unless those facts continued after that date.

On the web page: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/individual.htm

It states:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Treaty Bodies - Individual Communications

23 FAQ about Treaty Body complaints procedures

Additional pointers on the admissibility of your case

"Alternatively, it is usually a sufficient ground for the Committee to examine the whole complaint if, after the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol, there has been a court decision or some other State act relating to an event preceding that date."

Whilst the initial Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal hearings and judgments were before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the United Kingdom, the Court of Session affirmation (12 February 2010) of the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal hearings and judgments after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the United Kingdom to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the unchanged laws which relate to these hearings and judgments, only serve to affirm that those facts are a continuing violation against myself and all other Diabetics, which still persist to this day.

(vi) All domestic remedies in the United Kingdom have been exhausted relating to this complaint. I started in The Employment Tribunal, appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, then appealed to the Court of Session, then tried to appeal to the UK Supreme Court who stated that they had no jurisdiction to hear my appeal.

(vii) My complaint is not an abuse of the complaints process, as this is the first time I have ever complained to the United Nations on any matter.

(viii) An application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in December 2008. This application concerned a part of my case struck out by the Employment Tribunal regarding reasonable adjustments. I also lodged and joined a further application concerning alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning my rights to a fair hearing and discrimination in conjunction with other articles. A further application was also lodged and joined in December 2010 concerning awards of expenses made against me.

The European Court of Human Rights informed me on 4 April 2011 that my application, including all further joined applications, had been declared inadmissible by a single Judge from Malta, Malta is a member of the United Kingdom Commonwealth countries.

On the web page: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/individual.htm

It states:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Treaty Bodies - Individual Communications

23 FAQ about Treaty Body complaints procedures

Additional pointers on the admissibility of your case

"Second, the Committee has taken the view that, inasmuch as the Covenant provides greater protection in some respects than is available under other international instruments, facts that have already been submitted to another international mechanism can be brought before the Committee if broader protections in the Covenant are invoked. It should be added that, in the Committee's view, complaints dismissed by other international mechanisms on procedural grounds have not been substantively examined; the same facts may therefore be brought before the Committee."

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides much broader protections to people with disabilities than the European Convention on Human Rights.

The application dismissed by the European Court of Human Rights was on procedural grounds, and did not result in any hearing, so has not been substantively examined.

Merits

On 12 August 1964, Kenneth Robert McAlpine (the Petitioner) was born. In 1966 the Applicant was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus (Type 1) at age eighteen months, which is insulin dependent diabetes controlled by daily injections of insulin. The Disability Discrimination Act in the United Kingdom covers this form of diabetes.

On 12 August 1998, the Applicant started work for Oracle Corporation UK Limited, as a Consultant, and in July 2004 started work in the role of On Demand Service Delivery Manager (oSDM) having the job title "Service Delivery Manager" in the On Demand group, part of the Support organisation (Page 21).

On the 25 May 2006, the Applicant received a phone call from his manager, Mr Philip Snowden, who informed him that he had to attend a meeting in the Edinburgh office on 30 May 2006. No reason was given for this meeting (Page 22).

At the meeting on 30 May 2006, the Applicant was informed by a Director that he had been provisionally selected for redundancy.

The Applicant was made redundant on 10 July 2006 (Page 23).

The Applicant presented a complaint to the Employment Tribunals Service on 25 August 2006 claiming that his dismissal from the employment of Oracle Corporation UK Limited had been unfair and that he had been discriminated against contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act (Page 22).

During disclosure of documents, Oracle Corporation UK Limited disclosed the following emails to the Applicant, the first email from Mr Philip Snowden, the Applicant's Manager,  page 19, which states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

The follow-up to this email, from Catherine Temple, Senior HR Manager,  page 20, stated:

"I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing"

Oracle Corporation UK Limited admitted in writing in the Employment Tribunal ET3 form that the Applicant had taken just two days sickness absence over the previous two years,  page 48. The average UK employee takes eight days sickness absence each year.

Both of these emails gave Oracle Corporation UK Limited and their legal team a huge problem, as it linked the Petitioners disability to the redundancy, even although the Petitioner had the job title "Service Delivery Manager", and was the seventh longest serving team member in a team of fourteen Service Delivery Managers (oSDM).

Oracle Corporation UK Limited legal team now had to invent a story that the Petitioner did not perform the Service Delivery Manager role, that the Petitioner was at threat of being fired prior to any mention of the Petitioners disability, so that they could convince the Tribunal that the firing of the Petitioner was not connected to disability, and that the Petitioner had a unique role within a team of fourteen employees.

There was however one huge problem, Oracle Corporation UK Limited and their legal team, did not have any hard factual evidence to prove this story, so they had to 'invent' this story, by fabricating or altering evidence, and relying on some of their current employees to be witnesses and tell the story.

However, this still left one huge problem. The email stating that diabetes would result in prolonged periods of time off in the future. It is worth noting at this point that the word "diabetes" was used, not "Kenneth McAlpine", not "United Kingdom diabetes", but the term "diabetes" which is wholly inclusive of all diabetics worldwide, whether Type 1 or Type 2, and which includes some 245 million people worldwide. As a consequence the United Kingdom legal system has had to rule on whether "diabetes", wholly inclusive of all diabetics, would result in prolonged periods of time off in the future.

At the full hearing on merits at the Employment Tribunal in Glasgow on 2, 3 and 4 July and 6 August 2007, both the claim for unfair dismissal and the claim for disability discrimination were dismissed,  page 35.

The Applicant, now represented by a Pro-Bono Solicitor, then presented an appeal to the Employment Appeals Tribunal on 24 October 2007, which did not even get by the sift process,  page 74, and then presented this appeal in front of a Judge sitting alone at a Rule 3(10) hearing on 20 June 2008. This appeal was dismissed,  page 86.

The Applicant then presented an appeal at the Court of Session that was opposed by Oracle Corporation UK Limited, and which was dismissed in its entirety at the opposition hearing. The judgment dismissing this appeal in its entirety was issued on 12 February 2010,  page 95.

The Applicant then emailed the Court of Session judgment to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on 12 February 2010 asking the Supreme Court if they had jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The Supreme Court replied to this email on 12 February 2010 stating that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction,  page 97.

Alleged breaches of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Article 27 – Work and Employment

The first alleged breach of the Convention concerns the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness (Page 19, 3rd paragraph). It is extremely hard to predict with any certainty whatsoever, what is going to happen in the future, so it is impossible to state that all 245 million people with diabetes will have future sickness absences.

The Petitioner had two days sickness absence in the previous two years (Page 48) prior to this stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in prolonged future sickness absence. The average employee in the United Kingdom has eight days sickness absence each year, but this stereotypical assumption would not be made for an average employee without a disability.

The United Kingdom has legislation to protect discrimination based on disability, the Disability Discrimination Act, and this legislation was quoted throughout the case and appeals:

The Disability Rights Commission, Code of Practice, Employment and Occupation, Section 4.8,  Page 100 of this document states:

"4.8 Consequently, if the less favourable treatment occurs because of the employer's generalised, or stereotypical, assumptions about the disability or its effects, it is likely to be direct discrimination. This is because an employer would not normally make such assumptions about a non-disabled person, but would instead consider his individual abilities."

The stereotype was "diabetes", and the assumption was "prolonged period of time off due to illness", an assumption of future illness, which was not based on any historical fact in the case of the Petitioner, an assumption which would not be made for a non-disabled person.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Part II, Section 3A(5),  Page 99 of this document states:

"(5) A person directly discriminates against a disabled person if, on the ground of the disabled person's disability, he treats the disabled person less favourably than he treats or would treat a person not having that particular disability whose relevant circumstances, including his abilities, are the same as, or not materially different from, those of the disabled person."

The disability is diabetes, the less favourable treatment is the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in "prolonged period of time off due to illness" (Page 19), an assumption that would not be made of a person not having that particular disability.

Article 27 - Work and employment

1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with others; this includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities. States Parties shall safeguard and promote the realization of the right to work, including for those who acquire a disability during the course of employment, by taking appropriate steps, including through legislation, to, inter alia:

(a) Prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability with regard to all matters concerning all forms of employment, including conditions of recruitment, hiring and employment, continuance of employment, career advancement and safe and healthy working conditions;

The alleged breach of Article 27 of the Convention is that persons with disabilities are not working, and being employed, on an equal basis with others, if persons with disabilities are assumed to have prolonged periods of time off due to illness. This would result in a labour market and work environment that is not as open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities, as it should be in an equal society.

It is recognised that the United Kingdom has legislation to outlaw discrimination of persons with disabilities, but the United Kingdom is not safeguarding and promoting this realization, by applying this legislation.

The United Kingdom is therefore not prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability with regard to all matters concerning all forms of employment outlined in Article 27.1.(a) of the Convention.

Article 8 – Awareness-raising

This alleged breach of the Convention relates to the stereotypical assumption that "diabetes" will result in "prolonged period of time off due to illness" (Page 19).

Article 8 - Awareness-raising

1. States Parties undertake to adopt immediate, effective and appropriate measures:

(b) To combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to persons with disabilities, including those based on sex and age, in all areas of life;

The United Kingdom, despite having laws to protect against discrimination of persons with disabilities (Page 99), has not adopted immediate, effective and appropriate measures to combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to persons with disabilities, if employers (Page 19), the legal system and judges (Pages  35,  74,  86 and  95) are stereotyping all diabetics as having prolonged periods of time off due to illness (Page 19).

Article 12 - Equal recognition before the law

This alleged breach of the Convention relates to not only the Petitioner, but also any person with diabetes, who have not had equal recognition before the law.

Article 12 - Equal recognition before the law

4. States Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law. Such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are proportional and tailored to the person's circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. The safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person's rights and interests.

The Petitioner, in relation to the exercise of legal capacity, has taken this case through some six hearings or appeals, presided over by highly qualified and experienced Judges. All of these Judges have heard the legal arguments, considered the undisputable hard factual evidence supporting this case, considered the altered and fabricated evidence allegedly supporting this case, but have failed on some six separate attempts to declare disability discrimination, and have also failed to declare the right to a fair hearing.

Safeguards to ensure the exercise of legal capacity, which are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body, have not happened.

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd had disclosed the two discriminatory emails, pages  19 and  20, before the Employment Tribunal hearing, this provided huge problems to their case. The huge problems were that the Petitioner was the seventh longest serving Service Delivery Manager in a team of fourteen Service Delivery Managers, so last in, first out, in the redundancy (firing) process was not followed, as the Petitioner was the only Service Delivery Manager in the team of fourteen to be made redundant (fired). The Petitioner also had the job title "Service Delivery Manager" (Page 21).

Additional problems also included the discriminatory emails relating to disability had happened some seven weeks prior to the Petitioner being provisionally selected for redundancy (fired) on 30 May 2006.

In order for the Employment Tribunal to dismiss disability discrimination, the Employment Tribunal had to be convinced of the following:

The Petitioner ("Kenneth McAlpine") had a unique role within the team of fourteen Service Delivery Managers, so that last in, first out did not apply, and this would also explain why the Petitioner was the only person in the team to be made redundant (fired). As there was no evidence to support the unique role, witnesses, who were also current employees of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, would have to state that the Petitioner had a unique role.

Even although the discriminatory emails relating to disability had happened some seven weeks prior to the Petitioner being provisionally selected for redundancy (fired), the Employment Tribunal would have to be convinced that disability played no part in the redundancy (firing). This was achieved by stating that a Senior Director within Oracle Corporation UK Ltd had added the name of the Petitioner to an alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list in February 2006, before the discriminatory emails in April 2006. As there was no hard factual evidence of this, evidence had to be invented, and a Senior Director, who was also a current employee, would have to state that the Petitioner had been placed on an alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list in February 2006, before the discriminatory emails in April 2006, and that this Senior Director had no knowledge of the Petitioners disability before April 2006.

The Employment Tribunal did indeed dismiss disability discrimination for those reasons stated above (Page 35), as did all other Judges in all future appeals (Pages  74,  86 and  95).

However, the hard factual evidence presented by the Petitioner at the Employment Tribunal and all future appeals shows without any doubt whatsoever, that the Petitioner ("Kenneth McAlpine") did not have a unique or limited role as stated by Oracle Corporation UK Limited and all judgements, as  page 21 clearly shows from the Oracle Corporation Organisation Chart that "Kenneth McAlpine" has the job title "Service Delivery Manager", the same job title as all other team members.

Further hard factual evidence also shows that the Petitioner lodged the original case with the Employment Tribunal and clearly stated in section 4.2 that the Petitioners job was "Service Delivery Manager" as shown on  page 22, and that Oracle Corporation agreed that the Petitioners job was "Service Delivery Manager" as shown in section 3.3 on  page 23, without any reservations (unique or limited role) which could have been made in section 3.4.

This not only utterly discredits Oracle Corporation UK Limited story that the Petitioner was not a Service Delivery Manager, but had a unique or limited role, but it also utterly discredits the original Employment Tribunal judgement and future appeals that agreed that the Petitioner was not a Service Delivery Manager, but also had a unique or limited role.

In order for Oracle Corporation UK Limited to convince the Employment Tribunal that the Petitioner had not been made redundant (fired) due to disability, a story had to be invented that the Petitioner had been placed on an alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list prior to the discriminatory emails in April 2006.  Page 26 shows a contents page documenting the evidence presented at the Employment Tribunal. At "53" the description reads, "7 February 2006, Template Oracle RIF sheet Support and OD", and this evidence was listed on pages "329-339". This evidence is a series of emails meant to show that Malcolm Thompson received the alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list in February 2006,  pages 27 to 32 show that this evidence has been fabricated. These emails are a set of totally unconnected emails as can be seen from the "Subject" headings of each email, with a sequence of dates that are impossible, the first email on page 27 is dated "2 Feb 2006", the second email on page 30 is dated "23 Mar 2006", the third email on page 31 is dated "21 Feb 2006", and the fourth email on page 31 is dated "4 Feb 2006", this is impossible as these emails flip back and forward in time, and emails cannot go back in time, ie: the first email cannot be received on "2 Feb 2006" when the previous email was sent on "23 Mar 2006". This fabricated evidence has the sole purpose of showing that Malcolm Thompson allegedly received the Reduction In Force (RIF) list in February 2006.

As there was no hard factual evidence to state that the Petitioner had been placed on an alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list, a list of potential employees to be made redundant or fired, this evidence had to be invented. The alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list presented at the Employment Tribunal is shown on  page 24. As can be clearly seen "7998 McAlpine", the Petitioners employee number and surname, has been handwritten into this spreadsheet when everything else is printed. For a legal team including Solicitors and Barristers to not only present this as evidence in a legal case, but for the Tribunals and Courts to rely on this evidence is simply a disgrace. What is even more unbelievable is that there were two versions of this "evidence", as the alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list listed on  page 25 has the handwritten "7998 McAlpine" in a different place.

This should not detract from the simple fact that direct disability discrimination took place when the stereotypical assumption was made in  page 19 that diabetes would result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, and that a second direct disability discrimination took place when this stereotypical assumption was used to action redundancy (firing).

The Petitioner believes that the United Kingdom has not ensured effective safeguards to prevent abuse of international human rights law. The United Kingdom should investigate whether the Petitioner has had a fair hearing, whether conflicts of interest, undue influence or personal gain had any effect on these hearings, and whether effective safeguards are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body, as the Petitioner had six separate hearings and appeals, performed by qualified and experienced Judges, and the laws were available to these Judges to declare disability discrimination (Page 99).

Article 4 - General obligations

This alleged breach of the Convention relates to not only the Petitioner, but also any person with diabetes, and the general obligations placed upon the United Kingdom.

Article 4 - General obligations

1. States Parties undertake to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability. To this end, States Parties undertake:

(d) To refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the present Convention and to ensure that public authorities and institutions act in conformity with the present Convention;

(e) To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability by any person, organization or private enterprise;

The United Kingdom has undertaken to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities, including persons with diabetes, without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability.

In Article 4.1(e) the United Kingdom has undertaken to refrain from engaging in any act or practice that is inconsistent with the present Convention and to ensure that public authorities and institutions, such as the United Kingdom Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Session and Judges, act in conformity with the present Convention, and do not dismiss disability discrimination based on diabetes (Pages  35,  74,  86 and  95) when presented with such overwhelming hard factual evidence of disability discrimination based on diabetes at the six hearings and appeals (Pages  19 and  20).

In Article 4.1(d) the United Kingdom has also undertaken to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability by any person, organisation or private enterprise. No appropriate measures have been taken which have eliminated discrimination based on disability when Oracle Corporation UK Limited (private enterprise) can state in emails that diabetes will result in future sickness absence (Pages  19 and  20), in the initial case and subsequent appeals, and this discrimination is dismissed in the initial case and subsequent appeals (Pages  35,  74,  86 and  95).

Article 5 - Equality and non-discrimination

This alleged breach of the Convention relates to not only the Petitioner, but also any person with diabetes, and the general obligations placed upon the United Kingdom.

Article 5 - Equality and non-discrimination

2. States Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds.

The United Kingdom shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds.

This has simply not happened. The United Kingdom has not prohibited all discrimination on the basis of disability when private enterprises such as Oracle Corporation UK Limited are stating that diabetes will result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness (Page 19), and that this stereotypical assumption that disability equals future sickness absence results in redundancy (firing) (Page 20). The United Kingdom is not guaranteeing to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds when the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Session are agreeing that diabetes will result in future sickness absence by dismissing it as not being discrimination (Pages  35,  74,  86 and  95).

Article 22 – Respect for privacy

This alleged breach of the Convention relates specifically to the Petitioner and his family, and the general obligations placed upon the United Kingdom.

Article 22 – Respect for privacy

1. No person with disabilities, regardless of place of residence or living arrangements, shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or correspondence or other types of communication or to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation. Persons with disabilities have the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

The United Kingdom shall prohibit arbitrary and unlawful interference with a disabled persons privacy, family, or unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

At the Employment Tribunal, costs of £3,700.00 were awarded against the Petitioner, and at the Court of Session, costs of £6,968.25 were awarded against the Petitioner, both costs in favour of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

In Scotland a Sheriff Officer is an officer of the court who is employed to enforce costs awards by arresting bank accounts and repossession of property.

On 8 September 2010 two Sheriff Officers arrived on the Petitioners street, and proceeded to knock on the Petitioners door. No one was in the Petitioners house at the time, so the Sheriff Officers proceeded to knock on neighbour's houses, and stopped one of my neighbours, out walking his dog, to enquire of the Petitioners whereabouts, if the neighbour knew anything about the Petitioner, and where the Petitioner worked.

The Court of Session costs had not been decided by 8 September 2010, and the Employment Tribunal costs were still being appealed, yet Maureen Hall, a Solicitor at McGrigors LLP, had instructed Sheriff Officers in recovery of both awards.

On 14 September 2010 two Sheriff Officers again arrived on the Petitioners street, and knocked on the Petitioners door. This time the Petitioner was in the house, and a Sheriff Officer enquired on the Petitioners ability to pay, the location of the Petitioners bank, whether the Petitioner was working, the value of the Petitioners house, and the value of the Petitioners car. When the Petitioner enquired on how much the Petitioner had to pay, the Sheriff Officer was unable to inform the Petitioner.

In order to recover costs, it is a fundamental necessity to know the amount of costs to be recovered. This was not known at this time, as outlined in the email from Maureen Hall on  page 33. Therefore, this has been an unlawful attack on the Petitioner, the Petitioners family, and the honour and reputation built up by the Petitioner and the Petitioners family around neighbours and within the community.

The Petitioner firmly believes that the unlawful use of Sheriff Officers to recover an unknown amount of costs was simply to put pressure on the Petitioner to drop future appeals.

A separate breach of Article 22 concerns the Employment Tribunal labelling the Petitioner to "not be a credible witness" (Page 59), which has utterly destroyed the Petitioners honour and reputation, considering this judgement has been in the public domain for four years. The Petitioner presented nothing but hard factual evidence throughout this case. The Citizens Advice Bureau informed the Petitioner that the Employment Tribunal were calling you a liar when stating "not be a credible witness".

With respect to remedy, the Petitioner would request that the original amount claimed at the Employment Tribunal be awarded by the United Kingdom to the Petitioner as a lost opportunity, as the Employment Tribunal is a United Kingdom government institution.

Footnote to Alleged Breaches of the Convention

As stated earlier, the United Nations should investigate whether conflicts of interest, undue influence or personal gain had any effect on the six separate hearings and appeals which dismissed disability discrimination, because it was not due to unqualified or inexperienced Judges, it was not due to error as there have been six hearings and appeals, and the state laws were available to these Judges to declare disability discrimination (Page 99).

The Petitioner also approached The Equality and Human Rights Commission, Members of Parliament, International Diabetes Federation, among many, many others, and none of these entities helped.

If the United Nations does decide to investigate the entities involved in this case, the main entities were:

Tribunal members were Ms L J Crone, Mr J Love and Mrs M C Fee.

Employment Appeal Tribunal Judge Lady Smith.

Court of Session Judges Lord Osborne, Lord Clarke and Lady Dorrian.

Oracle Corporation employees were Philip Snowden, Catherine Temple, Nicholas Cooper, Malcolm Thompson and Sue Scates.

Barristers, Advocates and Lawyers were Neil Davy (Barrister), Angela Gill and Simeon Spencer (Morgan Lewis), Douglas Fairley (Advocate), Maureen Hall (McGrigors).

History shows that many groups, who have been discriminated against, have found ways of correcting these wrongs. In this case it may be open to any person with diabetes who resides in a country that allows group legal actions, to take out a group legal action against any or all of the following, Oracle Corporation, the United Kingdom, or in particular Ministry of Justice, Scottish Court Service, The Employment Tribunals and Court of Session, or the people involved, that may help to prevent future discrimination of persons with disabilities.

V. Checklist of supporting documentation

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT; PAGE

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION; 18

Email diabetes,future sickness absence, redundancy; 19

Email offsick again, redundancy; 20

Kenneth McAlpine Service Delivery Manager 30 May 2006; 21

Employment Tribunal ET1 Application Form; 22

Employment Tribunal ET3 Respondents Form; 23

Alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list 1; 24

Alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list 2; 25

Employment Tribunal Bundle of Documents; 26

Employment Tribunal evidence - email 2 Feb 2006; 27 - 29

Employment Tribunal evidence - email 23 Mar 2006; 30

Employment Tribunal evidence - email 21 Feb & 4 Feb 2006; 31 - 32

McGrigors Sheriff Officers email 10 Sep 2010; 33

Webpage - Oracle facing £370,000 sex discrimination claim; 34

Employment Tribunal judgement; 35 \- 72

Employment Appeal Tribunal Rule 3(7) judgement; 73 - 74

Employment Appeal Tribunal Rule 3(10) judgement; 75 - 86

Court of Session judgement; 87 - 96

UK Supreme Court email; 97

European Court of Human Rights letter; 98

Disability Discrimination Act section 3A(5); 99

Disability Rights Commission Code of Practice section 4.8; 100

Around a month later, on 20 June 2011, I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

In May, I sent a petition to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and in the first line of the petition it was clearly marked "Procedure Invoked: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities"

Today, I have received a letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, that the UN is not in a position to assist me because "The Human Rights Committee cannot examine petitions alleging violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) because the UK is not a State party to the Optional Protocol.

The UK is a state party to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which is the procedure I invoked.

Can you explain why my petition was dismissed for a procedure that I never invoked (the ICCPR)?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The next day I sent the following letter to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

21 June 2011

Your Reference: G/SO 215/51 UK(GEN)

OHCHR

Petitions Team

Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

In your letter dated 15 July 2011, you stated that you were not in a position to help with my petition because the Human Rights Committee cannot examine petitions alleging violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) because the UK is not a State party to the Optional Protocol.

My petition alleges violations of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and this is clearly stated in the first line of the petition:

"Procedure Invoked: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities"

I trust that this has been a mistake on your part, and as there were no other preliminary criteria marked, that this petition is satisfactory, and should now be sent in front of The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr K.R. McAlpine

On 1 July 2011 I received the following email from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

Thank you for your message. Please note that your complaint is currently being examined under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We appologise for the inconveniences.

Yours sincerely,

Petitions Unit (Unité des requêtes)

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Two weeks later I received another letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

REFERENCE: G/SO 215/51 UK(GEN)

13 July 2011

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

After careful consideration of the contents of your communication we sincerely regret having to inform you that the Petitions Unit of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights is not in a position to assist you in the matter you raise.

After having carefully examined your communication, it appears that the facts that are the subject of your complaint occurred prior to the entry into force for the UK of the Optional Protocol Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

For information about the procedure for the examination of individual petitions on human rights violations, please consult out website www.ohchr.org, direct link: http://www2.ohchr.prg/english/bodies/petitions/index.htm.

Yours sincerely,

The Petitions Unit

Two days later I also received another letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

REFERENCE: G/SO 215;51 UK(GEN)

15 July 2011

Dear Sir,

After careful consideration of the contents of your petition (communication / complaint), we sincerely regret having to inform you that the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is not in a position to assist you in the matter you raise, for the reasons indicated on the back of this letter.

Please accept our apologies for not replying in a more personal manner. You may understand that, while we appreciate your reasons for writing to us, the existing procedures require that it is ascertained whether certain preliminary criteria are satisfied before proceeding with the examination of a petition.

For information about the procedures for the examination of individual petitions on human rights violations, please consult our website: www.ohchr.org, direct link: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/index.htm.

If you have difficulty accessing our website, please write to the UNHCHR, Information Office PW-RS-011, 1211 Geneva 10, and ask for Human Rights Fact Sheets Nos. 7, 12, 15 and 17.

Yours sincerely,

The Petitions Unit

On the other side of the page it contained the following text:

1. (box ticked) The Human Rights Committee cannot examine petitions alleging violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) unless the State is also a party to the Optional Protocol (OP). The UK is not a State party to the Optional Protocol.

On 21 July 2011 I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

In your letter (Your Reference: G/SO 215/51 UK(GEN)) dated 13 July 2011, you stated that you could not accept my petition because "the subject of your complaint occurred prior to the entry into force for the UK of the Optional Protocol Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities."

The CRPD Optional Protocol states in Article 2 (f): "(f) The facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State Party concerned unless those facts continued after that date."

The date of entry into force of the CRPD Optional Protocol was 3 May 2008, the UK signed this on 26 February 2009, and ratified this on 7 August 2009.

The date of the last UK Court judgment regarding the facts in my case is dated 12 February 2010, which is almost two years after the entry into force of the CRPD Optional Protocol, and one year after the UK signed and ratified the CRPD Optional Protocol.

I now trust that my petition will now proceed forward to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Thank you.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Chapter 3

On 11 August 2011 I received the following email from the European Court of Human Rights:

Please find a copy of your message to the European Court of Human Rights. This email was generated automatically, please do not reply.

Please note that if your request concerns an application which you have brought before the Court or which you wish to bring before the Court, it will not be dealt with.

If you wish to contact the Registry in relation to such an application, you must do it by fax or post (click here for contact details).

Last name: McAlpine

First name: Kenneth

You are: Other

Ask for

Message: Dear Sir/Madam,

I was on your website looking at sections and judges.

Can you explain why Judge "V. De Gaetano" from Malta, is in the same Section IV as "N. Bratza" from the United Kingdom?

As Malta is part of the UK Commonwealth, this will raise serious questions on the impartiality of any sole decisions made by "V. De Gaetano" on UK cases, or "V. De Gaetano" and "N. Bratza" jointly on UK cases?

Can you answer these concerns?

Thanks

Mr K McAlpine

I then sent the following letter to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Mr K.R. McAlpine

20 August 2011

Your Reference: G/SO 215/51 UK(GEN)

OHCHR

Petitions Team

Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

In your letter dated 13 July 2011, you stated that you were not in a position to help with my petition because the facts that are the subject of my complaint occurred prior to the entry into force for the UK of the Optional Protocol of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

The CRPD Optional Protocol states in Article 2 (f): "(f) The facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State Party concerned unless those facts continued after that date."

The date of entry into force of the CRPD Optional Protocol was 3 May 2008, the UK signed this on 26 February 2009, and ratified this on 7 August 2009.

The date of the last UK Court judgment regarding the facts in my case is dated 12 February 2010, which is almost two years after the entry into force of the CRPD Optional Protocol, and one year after the UK signed and ratified the CRPD Optional Protocol.

As there was a State act by the UK (Court decision) on 12 February 2010, this proves that the facts continued after the date of entry into force of the CRPD Optional Protocol, and are still continuing to this date.

I now trust that my petition will now proceed forward to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr K.R. McAlpine

Two days later I received the following email from the European Court of Human Rights:

Dear Sir,

Following your question, you can find more information about the composition of the Court in the Rules of the Court in Articles 24, 25, 26 and 27.

Yours sincerely,

Public Relations Unit

European Court of Human Rights

I immediately sent the following email reply to the European Court of Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email.

I asked you to answer two specific questions, namely:

Can you explain why Judge "V. De Gaetano" from Malta, is in the same Section IV as "N. Bratza" from the United Kingdom?

As Malta is part of the UK Commonwealth, this will raise serious questions on the impartiality of any sole decisions made by "V. De Gaetano" on UK cases, or "V. De Gaetano" and "N. Bratza" jointly on UK cases?

The Rules of the Court Articles 24, 25, 26 and 27, do not answer these specific questions.

Can you answer these specific questions?

Mr K McAlpine

One week later I received the following email from the European Court of Human Rights:

Dear Sir,

The sections are composed as regarding in the Rules of the Court, it doesn't exist any other reason.

Yours sincerely,

Public Relations Unit

European Court of Human Rights

On 5 September 2011 I sent the following email to the European Court of Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email.

I am sorry, but you are misunderstanding me competely.

Once again, can you explain why judge, "V. De Gaetano", from Malta, which is part of the UK Commonwealth, is in the same section, as judge, "N. Bratza", from UK. This will raise serious questions on the impartiality of any sole decisions made by "V. De Gaetano" on UK cases, or "V. De Gaetano" and "N. Bratza" jointly on UK cases?

I am raising this as a major concern on the impartiality of this section, and this Court.

Can you please pass this email onto someone who can answer this concern.

Mr K McAlpine

One week later, on 12 September 2011, I sent another email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have not received any reply to my last email or letter sent on 20 August 2011.

Can you provide me with an update on where this petition is in your system?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Around this time I was contemplating sending an electronic petition to the Scottish Parliament, and I had created two options for the petition:

Created by: Kenneth McAlpine

Responsible Department: Ministry of Justice

Epetition Name: Diabetes, employment and prolonged periods of time off due to illness.

Epetition Option 1

A full public enquiry and the Ministry of Justice to provide an explanation as to why the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal does not find any discrimination when an employer states that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Epetition Option 2

A full public enquiry and the Ministry of Justice to provide an explanation as to why the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal does not find any discrimination when an employer states that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

There are presently around 245 million Diabetics worldwide, and the present UK law states that when a stereotypical assumption (ie: Diabetes = prolonged period of time off due to illness) is made, then this is direct discrimination, because you cannot state with any certainty whatsoever that any of the 245 million Diabetics are going to have prolonged periods of time off due to illness, never mind all of them.

From the period 24 October 2011 to 7 November 2011, I tried to submit around nine epetitions to the UK government, each time the epetition was rejected with the same email reply, the whole process went like the following:

I would submit my epetition, and receive the following email response:

Dear Kenneth McAlpine,

Thanks for creating an e-petition.

Before your e-petition is reviewed, you need to confirm your email address by clicking on the link below:

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/signatures/2108980/verify/JIgcSmkhFiskkuCCPAs

If you don't want to submit this e-petition or believe this message was sent in error, please ignore this e-mail.

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

My epetition would be rejected with the following email reply:

Dear Kenneth McAlpine,

Your e-petition "Diabetes, employment and prolonged periods of time off due to illness" hasn't been accepted.

E-petitions will not be accepted if they:

* contain information which may be protected by an injunction or court order

* contain material that is potentially confidential, commercially sensitive or which may cause personal distress or loss

* include the names of individuals if they have been accused of a crime or information that may identify them

* include the names of individual officials who work for public bodies, unless they are part of the senior management of those organisations

* include the names of family members of elected representatives, eg MPs, or officials who work for public bodies

If you'd like to submit a new e-petition, please read the site's terms and conditions which explain the rules in detail.

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

On 27 October 2011 I sent the following email to the Petitions Department of the Scottish Parliament:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was on your website trying to raise an epetition, but none of the links to any of the documents seem to be working, and i have no idea how to raise an epetition.

Can you help by explaining how I raise an electronic petition via your website?

Or should I just use one of the widely available internet petitons?

Mr McAlpine

That same day I received the following email reply from the Petitions Department of the Scottish Parliament:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a completed Petition Template.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Attached petition read:

THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

Public Petition

1. Name of petitioner

Kenneth McAlpine

2. Petition title

Diabetes, employment and prolonged periods of time off due to illness.

3. Petition text

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a full public enquiry to provide an explanation as to why the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Session does not find any discrimination when an employer states that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

4. Action taken to resolve issues of concern before submitting the petition

Glasgow Employment Tribunal did not find any discrimination.

Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal did not find any discrimination.

Court of Session did not find any discrimination.

5. Petition background information

6. Do you wish your petition to be hosted on the Parliament's website as an e-petition?

YES (Delete as appropriate). If you answer "NO" please proceed to section 9.

7. Closing date for e-petition

One year after initial acceptance and posting

8. Comments to stimulate on-line discussion

One week later I sent another email to the Petitions Department of the Scottish Parliament:

Dear Mr Hynd,

It has been one week since your last email, and no clerk has been in touch with me.

When can I expect a clerk to get in touch with me?

Regards,

Mr McAlpine

Later that day I also sent an email to my Member of the Scottish Parliament, Kenneth Gibson:

Dear Mr Gibson,

My name is Kenneth McAlpine.

I am currently trying to create an epetition, either for Scottish Government, or UK Government.

The UK Government has rejected my latest, fourth, epetition, for the reason I can only guess that the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal in Scotland are devolved issues.

So my question is, Are the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal in Scotland under the UK Justice Department or the Scottish Justice Department?

If the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal in Scotland are under the UK Justice Department, can you contact the UK epetitons department, and ask them to accept my epetition.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

On 3 November 2011 I sent the following email to the Justice Department of the Scottish Parliament:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been trying to create an epetiton for weeks, and have been constantly rejected.

The latest rejection email is listed below.

The reason for the epetition is as follows: "E-petitions cannot be used for freedom of information requests."

This is strange, as my epetition could not have been construed in anyway whatsoever as a freedom of information request.

I want an epetition which asks The Justice Department why the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal does not find any discrimination when an employer states that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

There are millions of Diabetics in the UK, and 245 million Diabetics worldwide that have a right to know how The Justice Department, ET and EAT regard them.

Can you sort this out with the epetitions Department?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Later that same day I received an email reply from my Member of the Scottish Parliament, Kenneth Gibson:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your email.

I have sought clarification from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) and will get back to you when I have it.

Best wishes,

Kenneth J Gibson MSP

The next day I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you help with the status of my petition, as it concerns the rights of some 245 million Diabetics worldwide, particularly the right of employers not to discriminate against Diabetics by stating that they are going to be off-sick a lot in the future.

The CRPD Optional Protocol states in Article 2 (f): "(f) The facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State Party concerned unless those facts continued after that date."

The date of entry into force of the CRPD Optional Protocol was 3 May 2008, the UK signed this on 26 February 2009, and ratified this on 7 August 2009.

The date of the last UK Court judgment regarding the facts in my case is dated 12 February 2010, which is almost two years after the entry into force of the CRPD Optional Protocol, and one year after the UK signed and ratified the CRPD Optional Protocol, so those facts continued after the entry into force of the present Protocol as the UK Court hearings were appeals on the original judgment.

I trust that my petition will now proceed forward to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Thank you.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Two days later I sent the following email to the Forejustice website:

Attached to this email was my petition lodged at the United Nations.

Dear Sir/Madam,

There are around 245 million Diabetics worldwide, yet the UK Legal system has ruled that it is legal to state that Diabetics are going to have prolonged sickness absences, and it is acceptable to sack them from employment.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has also thrown out this case. The single Judge that threw out this case was from Malta, which is a disgrace, as Malta is part of the British Commonwealth, yet the UK and Malta judges are in the same Section IV, and the Malta judge is able to judge on cases against Britain.

As the ECHR has thrown out this case because "they did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols", the ECHR is also stating that it is legal to state that Diabetics are going to have prolonged sickness absences, and it is acceptable to sack them from employment.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has already wrote to me and stated that they will not be able to accept my petition because the facts of my case were before the entry into force of the convention.

Around 245 million Diabetics will therefore not receive justice.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The next day I sent the following email to the Legal Ombudsman:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a petition to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

It concerns, among other things, the conduct of Solicitors within your jurisdiction, particularly Angela Gill and Simeon Spencer who worked at Morgan Lewis London Office in 2007.

The attached document explains some of the conduct (fabrication of evidence, fraud by deception, etc), but I have other evidence, including witness statements taken by these Solicitors, which show, without any doubt, witness collusion.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Later that day I received the following email reply from the Legal Ombudsman:

Legal Ombudsman

Thank you for your email

We'll be in touch shortly with a more detailed reply.

If this is the first time you've contacted us, please find below some details about how we work and how we can help you. This may be useful for you to decide whether you want to complain formally.

Later that evening I received another email from the Legal Ombudsman:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your email dated 7 November 2011.

We have a number of points we would like to clarify so that we can establish if we are able to accept your complaint. We would like to clarify are the following questions:

1. Is your complaint about a lawyer that acted for you?

2. Is the lawyer based in England or Wales?

3. Did the problems happen within the last 12 months?

Please can you call our Assessment Centre on the number below to discuss these points. Please quote the reference number when calling.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours sincerely

Assessment Centre

Legal Ombudsman

That same evening I received yet another email from the Legal Ombudsman:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Further to my email below, we have quoted an incorrect reference number. Please can you quote 201125391.

Please accept our apologies for this.

Yours sincerely

Assessment Centre

Legal Ombudsman

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Legal Ombudsman:

Dear Sir/Madam,

1. Is your complaint about a lawyer that acted for you?

No, about lawyers that acted against me.

2. Is the lawyer based in England or Wales?

Yes.

3. Did the problems happen within the last 12 months?

No, but I have been unable to report this earlier due to ongoing appeals, which have just finished.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The last email I sent that day was to my Member of Parliament, Katy Clark:

Dear Katy,

Can you please contact the epetitions department, and request someone from that department to contact me regarding the wording of an epetition I have been trying to create for the last two weeks.

I have submitted around ten epetitions, and ten rejections have followed for numerous reasons.

The wording of the epetition has been along the following lines:

Department: Ministry of Justice

Title: Diabetes, employment and discrimination

Text: A full public enquiry and the Ministry of Justice to provide an explanation as to why the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal does not find any discrimination when it is stated that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

I cannot see any problem with this epetition.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Early the next morning I received the following email from the Petitions Department of the UK Government:

Dear Kenneth McAlpine,

Your e-petition "Diabetes, employment and prolonged period of time off due to illness" has now been published. You can view your e-petition at: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/21871

You can also share this URL to promote your e-petition or use the social network links available on your e-petition's page.

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

Later that morning I received an email from the Scottish Parliament:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Please find attached the draft template for your proposed petition which contains some comments and questions.

Kind regards

Alison Wilson

Assistant Clerk

Public Petitions Committee

Attached petition read (comments and questions in [brackets]):

THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

Public Petition

1. Name of petitioner

Kenneth McAlpine

2. Petition title

3. Petition text

Diabetes, employment and prolonged periods of time off due to illness.

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a full public enquiry to provide an explanation as to why the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Session does not find any discrimination when an employer states that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

[Mr McAlpine: The Public Petitions Committee is unable to consider a specific decision of the Courts or of an Employment Tribunal. Also Employment and Equality issues are matters that are reserved to Westminster. The Committee is also unable to adjudicate or intervene on matters of personal interest and from the information provided it appears that you are seeking an enquiry into a specific case? A petition which asks the Committee to do something it is unable to do is likely to be considered inadmissible.

It is my understanding that Diabetes is already covered by the The Equality Act 2010 and as such workers with Diabetes are already protected under that Act as they were under the previous Disability Discrimination legislation.

It is unclear from the information that you have provided what it is you are seeking the Scottish Government to change. Can I refer you to the guidance notes on completing sections 4 and 5 which can be found at the end of this document as it would be helpful for the Committee if you were able to provide some background information?]

4. Action taken to resolve issues of concern before submitting the petition

Glasgow Employment Tribunal did not find any discrimination.

Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal did not find any discrimination.

Court of Session did not find any discrimination.

I have contacted my MSP, who was unable to do anything as an appeal was the only option, and an MSP cannot interfere with judicial proceedings.

Diabetes UK did help to get me a pro-bono lawyer during the Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing.

This matter is worldwide, as "Diabetes" was stated and ruled on.

[Mr McAlpine: what the Committee would be looking for here is any information on what you have done to address the issue prior to submitting the petition. For example have you approached your local MSP for assistance in bringing about the change you are seeking or have you sought advice / support from organisations such as Diabetes UK? Do they consider the matter to be of concern on a Scotland wide basis?]

5. Petition background information

There are around 245 million Diabetics worldwide. The Scottish legal system has ruled that stating that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness is NOT discrimination. This IS direct discrimination as it is a stereotypical assumption, stereotype is Diabetes, assumption is prolonged period of time off due to illness. Around 245 million people are going to be absolutely livid because the Scottish legal system agrees that they could have prolonged period of time off due to illness. Justice is a responsibility of the Scottish Government, and Diabetics have not had justice. Group action lawsuits could result from the many countries that allow them.

6. Do you wish your petition to be hosted on the Parliament's website as an e-petition?

YES (Delete as appropriate). If you answer "NO" please proceed to section 9.

7. Closing date for e-petition

One year after initial acceptance and posting

[Mr McAlpine: e-petitions normally run for between 4 and 6 weeks from the wording being finalised.]

The next email I received that morning was from the Legal Ombudsman:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your email dated 7 November 2011 confirming that the lawyers were not acting for you.

We attach our letter of response to your complaint which explains that we are not able to assist you on this occasion. We have provided details for the Solicitors Regulation Authority who may be able to assist you.

Thank you for contacting us.

Yours sincerely

Assessment Centre

Legal Ombudsman

Attached document read:

Mr Kenneth Robert

Case number: 201125391

8 November 2011

Dear Mr Robert

Your complaint about Morgan Lewis & Bockius

Thank you for emailing the Legal Ombudsman on 7 November 2011 and outlining your complaint about the service you received from Morgan Lewis & Bockius. I am writing to confirm why we are unable to look into your complaint on this occasion. I have also enclosed a leaflet describing what we do and when we can help with legal service complaints.

You told me that you have a complaint against Morgan Lewis & Bockius. This is because you say they fabricated evidence and colluded with witnesses.

The Legal Ombudsman has formal powers to investigate complaints brought to us by individual consumers and by small firms, trusts or charities. But they must be the people who were the lawyer's customer at the time - that is, people who were themselves receiving the service from the lawyer or law firm concerned.

In your case, you were not receiving the service you are complaining about from the lawyer concerned. The legal service which you are complaining about was provided to someone else. Unfortunately, this means we are not able to help you on this occasion.

You may wish to contact the Solicitors Regulation Authority on 0870 606 2555 with details of your complaints as your complaints appear to be regarding potential misconduct issues. They may be able to assist you.

Please get back in touch with us if you think we have got the facts as shown in this letter wrong or are aware of other matters that significantly alter the circumstances surrounding your complaint.

Thank you again for contacting us.

Yours sincerely

Assessment Centre

Legal Ombudsman

Later that day I sent the following email to Scottish Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I want to know what you are doing concerning human rights when an employer can state that Diabetics are going to be off sick a lot in the future, and sack them from their employment because of this?

See attached documents.

I only had 2 days sickness absence in 2 years.

What are you doing to stop this?

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

That same evening I sent another email to the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can I arrange an appointment to meet with someone from The Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The last email I sent that day was to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have emailed tb-petitions, CRPD-intern and enable on numerous occasions now regarding the status of my CRPD petition, but have received no reply.

Can someone give me an update on the status of my petition?

Regards,

Mr McAlpine

The last email I received that day was from the Diabetes Support Forum:

Can you explain please what your petition is based on? Which case and what happened? At the moment I feel disinclined to ask our members to sign this petition when no real explanation regarding the underlying case has been given. I might also advise, on previous experience of petitions, that yours needs to be more explanatory to the government before they will be likely to take it seriously.

The next morning I sent an email reply to the Diabetes Support Forum:

Dear Admin,

Firstly, please do not print the name of the Company or any of its employees, as this company could take legal action as the legal system in the UK has not ruled that this is discrimination.

The name of the Company was Oracle Corporation UK Limited, although you will not find any reference to their name in any public judgment, even although the Advocate was representing them. Strange that?

Please see attached document "emails.doc".

The first email is from my Manager to the Senior HR Manager, it states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

I do not have high blood pressure, but they may have been meaning high blood sugar. I also do not have high blood sugar.

The following email is the reply from the Senior HR Manager, it states:

"I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing"

The Company admitted that I had only taken 2 days sickness in 2 years, yet they also admitted that they did not even check my attendance record.

The questions that everyone should be asking are:

Why was my diabetes raised at all?

Why was a stereotypical assumption (which is direct discrimination) made about diabetes and future sickness absences?

As stated earlier in the post, this case was dismissed at the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, and higher Courts. You have to wonder if higher judges cover for the decisions of lower judges, or favour a multinational company over a single individual.

I have tried various epetitions which were worded better, but these kept getting rejected. If you feel strongly about this subject, contact The Equality and Human Rights Commission, perhaps they will listen more to a group of diabetics than just one.

Regards,

Kenneth

Later that morning I sent the following email to Dominic Littlewood, also a type 1 diabetic , at Flame TV Productions:

Dear Dominic,

I have been Diabetic for 46 years, and it hasn't held me back from getting an honours degree in Engineering and Masters degree in computing. There are around 245 million diabetics worldwide.

However, in 2006 this happened:

Please see attached document "emails.doc".

The first email was from my Manager to the Senior HR Manager, it states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

Simone/Cathy – given the above, are there any other options to exit Kenneth from the organisation prior to the end of FY06?"

I do not have high blood pressure, but they may have been meaning high blood sugar. I also do not have high blood sugar.

The following email is the reply from the Senior HR Manager, it states:

"I want to make sure we are not making matters more complicated by trying to bring him back into a customer facing role, which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing"

The Company admitted that I had only taken 2 days sickness in 2 years, yet they also admitted that they did not even check my attendance record.

The questions that everyone should be asking are:

Why was my diabetes raised at all?

Why was a stereotypical assumption, which is direct discrimination, made about diabetes and future sickness absences?

Over the past five years the case of disability discrimination has been dismissed by The Employment Tribunal (Glasgow), The Employment Appeal Tribunal (Edinburgh), The Court of Session (Edinburgh), The Supreme Court (No jurisdiction?), and The European Court of Human Rights.

There is a huge story here, I have only scratched the surface. Witness collusion, witness perjury, fabricated evidence, which I can easily prove, as it is all in writing. But this hasn't been the first time this Company has been naughty:

http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2004/10/29/oracle-facing-370000-sex-discrimination-claim-39125438/

James Laddie, Barrister, stated: "The respondent's [Oracle's] witnesses lied all the way through the liability proceedings,"

This Company not only put together a 'story' to con the Tribunals/Courts, but then claimed costs from me at The Employment Tribunal and Court of Session, amounting to around £11,000. The victim paying the discriminators. They then sent the Bailiffs round before anyone knew the amount of costs I had to pay at The Court of Session.

If you want this story, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I then sent an email to the Diabetes Support Forum:

Dear Admin,

I have not heard back from you, did you receive my email, and are you able to help in any way?

Thanks

Later that afternoon I received the following email from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir,

On 20 August 2011, the Secretariat of the High Commissioner for Human Rights sent to Mr. Mc Alpine the attached request for further information. To date, the Secretariat has received no reply to this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Petitions Unit (Unité des requêtes)

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

The next email I received was from the United Nations Enable organisation, which works to advance the rights of persons with disabilities in society and development:

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for your message and interest in the work of the United Nations for persons with disabilities.

Citizens of countries that have signed and ratified specific United Nations human rights conventions (including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) and their optional protocols can bring complaints before the treaty bodies that monitor the conventions. For detailed information about how to bring complaints, please visit the treaty body webpage of the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/treaty/index.htm

Sincerely,

Secretariat for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

I then sent the following email reply to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email.

The last correspondence I have received from you was dated "13 July 2011". I have not received your letter dated 20 August 2011.

In your letter dated 20 September 2011, you stated:

"The fact that a court decision intervened after this date does not in itself imply that the facts of your complaint have continued after this date, unless your complaint is also directed against the court decision."

My complaint is also directed against the court decision (Court of Session decision dated 10 February 2010), as this was an appeal of the earlier judgment and evidence of the Employment Appeal Tribunal which was an appeal of the earlier judgment and evidence of the Employment Tribunal.

Each judgment in a higher Court, is based on the arguments and evidence presented in the lower Court, and the judgment reached by the lower Court, so it is a continuation of the arguments, evidence and judgments of the lower Courts.

I now hope that this has clarified the situation, and that this petition can go forward to the CRPD Committee.

Thanks,

Kenneth

I then sent another email reply to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Merits document read out at Court of Session on 27 January 2010 was attached to this email:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to my earlier email of today, I have attached the document which was read out to the Court of Session in 2010.

As I used this document to write my petition to you, I have marked on the document in blinking red text (Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.9) the alleged breaches of the CRPD Convention in my petition, to the document read out to the Court of Session on 12 February 2010 (ignore the date of 26 June 2009 on first page as their Advocate took up the whole of that hearing with their legal arguments).

I hope this allows you to see that my petition is very much based on the Court of Session decision.

Thanks,

Kenneth

The last email I received that day was from the Diabetes Support Forum:

Sorry, I'm a working person who does work most days, I have only just received this post together with your first. I am about to submit it to the team at Diabetes-Support and will get back to you as soon as I can.

Patti Evans

Two days later I sent an email to the English and Scottish Equality and Human Rights Commission, and I attached a brief very similar to the brief sent to get the Advocates opinion in 2008.

Dear Sir/Madam,

In March 2010 I contacted the EHRC, regarding the disgraceful disability discrimination related to my employer stating that my diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

After five years going through the legal system, this case is starting to get out into the public domain. Diabetics are enraged, and some of these Diabetics have asked "What are The Equalities and Human Rights Commission doing to help?", to which I have had to state that I contacted The Equalities and Human Rights Commission early in 2010, and they have done nothing.

This email is to ask The Equalities and Human Rights Commission again, if they can help to get this decision overturned?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

On 14 November 2011 I received the following email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for providing further information to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

The EHRC helpline offers advice and guidance to those who feel that they have been personally discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race, disability, age, marriage or civil partnership status, sexual orientation, religion and belief or pregnancy and maternity. The Equality Act calls these protected characteristics.

We will give you initial advice and information. However, anything we say to you is not a statement of your legal position. We can only provide advice which falls under the jurisdiction of UK legislation.

We also offer limited advice on Human Rights, but only if this is linked directly with one or more of the protected characteristics listed above.

The content of the emails you attached certainly indicate potential disability discrimination; the employer seems to be suggesting that they will treat you less favourably because of your diabetes. It may also be inferred that there is a potential failure to make reasonable adjustments on their behalf.

I note that both emails are dated 2006. The normal legal timescale for initiating legal action in cases of discrimination in employment is 3 months minus one day from the incident date. I am unclear as to exactly what you are requesting from EHRC; what has happened in the five year period since the emails were written? You also make reference to the EHRC helping in getting ' this dreadful decision overturned'. What decision, and when was it made?

I'd be obliged if you could provide a synopsis of what has happened along with a timeframe for events, so that we can assess whether we can advice you any further.

Yours sincerely

Bill Stevenson

Advisor (Scotland)

Equality and Human Rights Commission

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am glad that you agree that this is disability discrimination.

Bearing in mind that this IS disability discrimination, I have been to the following Tribunals/Courts:

Employment Tribunal, 2007, dismissed disability discrimination.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2008, dismissed disability discrimination.

Court of Session, 2010, dismissed disability discrimination.

Supreme Court, 2010, No Jurisdiction.

European Court of Human Rights, 2011, dismissed application.

What remains is that it is not discrimination to state that Diabetes will result in prolonged periods of time off in the future in the UK.

I am not seeking any advice about what I can do, or about what a group of Diabetics can do, it is the remit and responsibility of The Equality and Human Rights Commission to do something about this.

What is The Equality and Human Rights Commission going to do about this?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

The last email I sent that day was to Fabian Hamilton, a Member of Parliament:

Dear Sir,

Please find a document attached outlining diabetes discrimination.

Please also note that this is NOT discrimination according to Tribunals and higher Courts.

I cannot send this to my local MP, as my local MP was a Solicitor in Unison with the original Judge of the Tribunal that dismissed discrimination.

I am hoping that because you have diabetes that you will either raise this appalling ruling in Parliament, or give it to someone who can help.

Thanks,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Attached document read:

Dear Sir/Madam,

In 1966, Mr Kenneth McAlpine was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus Type 1 at age 18 months, which is insulin dependent diabetes controlled by daily injections of insulin. This is the most serious form of Diabetes, and is covered by The Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Despite his disability, Mr McAlpine has gained an honours degree in Engineering and a Masters degree in Computing.

On 12 August 1998, Mr McAlpine started work for Oracle Corporation UK Limited, as a Consultant, and in July 2004 started work in the role of On Demand Service Delivery Manager.

On the 25 May 2006, Mr McAlpine received a phone call from his manager who informed him that he had to attend a meeting in the Edinburgh office on 30 May 2006. No reason was given for the meeting.

At the meeting on 30 May 2006, Mr McAlpine was informed by a Director that he had been selected for redundancy, despite being the 7th longest serving employee in a team of 14, the other 13 were not made redundant.

The Appellant was made redundant on 10 July 2006.

During disclosure of documents, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd disclosed the following email to myself and the Tribunal:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure – which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

This email went on to state that Mr McAlpine should be "exited" (made redundant) from the organisation due to the statement above.

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, admitted that Mr McAlpine had taken just two days sickness absence over the previous two years. The average UK employee takes eight days sickness absence each year.

Mr McAlpine has now taken this case to the following Tribunals/Courts:

Employment Tribunal, 2007, dismissed disability discrimination.

Employment Appeal Tribunal, 2008, dismissed disability discrimination.

Court of Session, 2010, dismissed disability discrimination.

Supreme Court, 2010, no jurisdiction.

European Court of Human Rights, 2011, dismissed appeal.

Ask any Solicitor if this is direct disability discrimination, because it is a stereotypical assumption of diabetes, ie: the stereotype is diabetes, the assumption is a prolonged period of time off in the future.

Apart from having one of the best claims of direct discrimination ever to be heard by a Tribunal in the UK as everything is in writing, some other extremely disturbing aspects to this case, are as follows:

Witnesses lying.

Witness collusion.

Documents altered.

Documents fabricated.

Some 170 pages of documents lost by Tribunal. Refusal to obtain these from the Respondent for future appeals.

Oracle Corporation UK Ltd have a history of acting in a less than truthful manner as was evident in Counsels final summary of Carlucci v Oracle, Case No 2700870/03 at a tribunal in Reading. Mr Laddie, of Counsel, outlined a deliberate policy of exclusion at the highest level and cited the high handed and arrogant conduct of Oracle throughout the hearings including repeated non-disclosure of documents and emails vital to the case. The witnesses lied all the way through the proceedings he said.

On 15 November 2011 I sent the following email to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email.

Before we proceed any further, it would be logical to answer one question, which would determine whether discrimination has happened or not.

Can I ask The Equality and Human Rights Commission if stating that Diabetes could result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness in the future is disability discrimination?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Later that afternoon I found an article on the Guardian newspaper website entitled "Equality commission accused of mismanaging £2m of taxpayers' money"

An extract from the article stated:

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has been accused of mismanaging more than £2m of taxpayers' money in a report by the government's spending watchdog. It describes how managers awarded unauthorised pay rises, signed large contracts without the required ministerial approval and wasted £870,000 on a website that did not work.

The last email that I sent that day was to the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland:

Dear Sir/Madam,

In your last email you stated "Having exhausted all legal avenues open to you, I am unclear as to how you believe EHRC can assist you."

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, on its website, states:

"About us

We have a statutory remit to promote and monitor human rights; and to protect, enforce and promote equality across the nine "protected" grounds - age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership, sexual orientation and gender reassignment."

So, it is my understanding that you have a statutory remit to protect, enforce and promote equality across the protected ground of disability discrimination.

You stated in an earlier email that stating that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness is disability discrimination.

So, on the protected ground of disability discrimination, what is The Equality and Human Rights Commission able to do to protect, enforce and promote this equality for Diabetics?

Please note that I see it as my public duty to disclose these emails if The Equality and Human Rights Commission refuses to protect, enforce and promote this equality for Diabetics.

I understand, looking at your website, that there are various methods to protect, enforce and promote this equality, such as:

Inquiries and Assessments

Making strong and targeted use of our powers, combining advice with conciliation and, where necessary, litigation we help people to achieve social change and ensure organisations can meet their legal and moral responsibilities under equality legislation and the Human Rights Act.

Enforcement
Introduction

One of the Commission's key roles as a modern regulator is to use our enforcement powers. These powers are vested in the Commission by the Equality Act 2006. This section signposts you to different aspects of our enforcement work. For more information please download our Enforcement and compliance policy. You can also find out about our enforcement work in our latest 'Legal enforcement update'.

There are presently around 3 million people with Diabetes in the UK, and around 245 million people with Diabetes worldwide.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Chapter 4

On the afternoon of 16 November 2011 I received the following email from Katy Clark, my Member of Parliament:

Dear Mr. McAlpine

I write to thank you for your email sent on 7th November 2011 regarding your rejected e-petition. I am disappointed that your suggested e-petition has been rejected and that no detailed explanation for this has been provided.

My only explanation is that from the text of your e-petition it could be unclear as to exactly what it is you want a public inquiry to cover. Although I understand what you are seeking this may be because I already have background knowledge of your particular case. It may be worth re-drafting the petition to either include more information about your case and an explanation of why you want this investigating or alternatively to make it more general ie." This petition calls for a full public enquiry to be established on how the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal conducts cases relating to Diabetes"

I will write to the Leader of the House of Commons Sir George Young MP and request that he arrange for someone from the e-petitions website to contact you on this matter.

With Best Wishes,

Katy Clark

Later that afternoon I received the following email from Lord Harrison:

Dear Mr MacAlpine,

Thank you for your Email re your diabetes. Your first port of call is nevertheless with your MP. If he/she believes they are compromised they will ask a colleague to take the matter up. MPs are very jealous of their rights and frown on Lords taking up so clear a constituency problem. But do insist that the MP acts.

Lyndon Harrison

House of Lords

I immediately sent the following email reply to Lord Harrison:

Dear Lord Harrison,

This is not "a constituency problem".

Why on earth would stating that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness be a constituency problem?

This is a UK wide problem, as The Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal both ruled that this was not discrimination. Both are UK institutions.

I have had numerous meetings with my MP, but they have just ended up in all talk no action. I get the impression that neither Parliament nor The House of Lords cares.

However, I do believe that things have a horrible habit of coming back to bite you very hard, so watch this space.

Mr McAlpine.

The next morning I received an email from the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your recent email. Further to our recent conversation, I can confirm that we have been in correspondence with both you and your father on this matter from 2007 to present.

We have read with interest all the information you have provided, however, as previously advised, we have decided that we will not take legal action in relation to the issues you have raised.

Please be assured that the decision not to assist you in taking your case forward does reflect on the importance of the issues you have raised. Neither does it, of course, prevent you from taking any legal action which you think is appropriate or from approaching the EHRC for guidance on any new issues you may have in the future.

If you do wish to contact the Commission in the future, please ensure that you send all correspondence to the Scottish office. Whilst we have offices in England and Wales, all Scottish enquiries are dealt with in Scotland. Any Scottish correspondence received by our English or Welsh offices will be forwarded to Scotland however this may delay our response turnaround time.

Kind Regards

Mario

EHRC Scotland

Around lunchtime that day I sent the following email to Katy Clark, my Member of Parliament:

Dear Katy,

Please see email chain below.

In essence, The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the government body set up to stop inequality, is not helping to stop disability discrimination.

I have made The Equalities and Human Rights Commission aware of this inequality in employment, and the continued inequality within the judicial system in the UK by not finding discrimination.

I now want you to write to the Chairman of The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, and ask him why The Equalities and Human Rights Commission is refusing to get this disgraceful decision that Diabetes could result in prolonged periods of time off in the future overturned.

Is the UK seriously suggesting that all Diabetics, some 245 million, are going to have prolonged periods of time off in the future.

Yours,

Mr K McAlpine

An hour later I sent a second email to Katy Clark, my Member of Parliament:

Dear Katy,

As a followup to my email to you "FW: EHRC Ref 1-10158385 & 1-8122955" sent an hour ago, please find attached an article from The Guardian entitled "Equality commission accused of mismanaging £2m of taxpayers' money".

You honestly couldn't make this up.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission refuse to help get a decision overturned that states that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness, which would only cost a few thousand pounds, yet they waste £2 million pounds of taxpayers money on wage rises and websites that don't work.

I will await your reply from The Equality and Human Rights Commission before sending this to United Nations Enable, as living in the UK, I would simply be too embarrassed.

Mr K McAlpine

Later that evening, while accessing the internet, I found the following news article:

BBC News

Tuesday, 25 September, 2001, 14:06 GMT 15:06 UK

Disabled face 'shocking' discrimination

The disability rights watchdog is calling for new laws to prevent the "shocking extent" of discrimination against millions of disabled people in the UK.

Discrimination is far more widespread than previously thought, according to the first annual review of the Disability Rights Commission (DRC).

New rights for disabled people are due to be introduced by the government in 2004 but the DRC says reform is needed now.

"Demand for DRC services has blasted original projections out of the water", Bert Massie, DRC.

Commission spokesman Sue Pratt says the number of complaints about discrimination at work or as consumers had taken them by surprise.

"We expected to take 40,000 calls in the first year, but we have taken 50% more than that, many from people we can't help," she told BBC News Online.

Complaints range from problems at work to people in wheelchairs not being allowed into restaurants.

The Commission had expected to be dealing with about 200 cases of discrimination a year, but has been able to help over 2,000 cases.

Greater awareness

Ms Pratt said a lot of people did not understand that "disability" extended beyond wheelchair users to included people with mental health or sensory problems, diabetes or epilepsy, for example.

"A great deal needs to be done to tackle the amount of awareness and create a cultural shift in awareness," she said.

The Commission's chairman Bert Massie believes the figures revealed by the report was "only the tip of the iceberg".

He says 80% of the UK's employers do not have to abide by the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act because they employ fewer than 15 people.

He said the loophole must be addressed.

The new Disability Act would:

* bring all employers under anti-discrimination laws - including small businesses

* give protection to people with HIV and people with cancer from the point of diagnosis

* bring public sector jobs such as the armed forces and police under the act.

Mr Massie added that legal enforcement, conciliation and cooperation were key to the DRC's plan for a society in which disabled people were valued equally.

"But these only work if they are backed by strong legislation," he said.

The Commission wants new laws to be included in the next Queen's Speech at the latest.

Business support

The Commission was set up as an independent body last April to create a level playing field for the UK's 8.5 million disabled people.

It aims to avoid court proceedings, preferring to concentrate on working with a service, retailer or employer to reach a remedy.

The new proposals announced last year were welcomed as the most significant programme of reforms since disability rights legislation was first introduced 30 years ago.

The police and the Federation of Small Businesses welcomed the law changes.

But senior military officers attacked proposals within the Disability Discrimination Act for disabled people to be allowed to join the armed forces.

Very late that evening I decided to contact Diabetes UK again and I sent the following email:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been Type 1 Diabetic since 1966, some 45 years.

My employer stated in an email (attached) that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

The HR Department then made me redundant because they didn't want someone to be off sick a lot in the future.

I worked for the company for 8 years, and had only taken 2 days absence in 2 years, and was the 7th longest serving member of a team of 14. None of the other team members were selected for redundancy.

I have fought this case through The Employment Tribunal, The Employment Appeal Tribunal, The Court of Session, The European Court of Human Rights.

During these cases, it was asked if stating that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness was discrimination, and every Tribunal/Court judged that it was not discrimination.

It has cost me thousands in legal fees, and I have had to pay my ex-employer £11,000 in costs, all for the pleasure of being discriminated.

This will become public shortly, as all legal proceedings have ended.

Can Diabetes UK contact The Equality and Human Rights Commission and ask them to get this dreadful decision overturned?

Can Diabetes UK contact The Equalities Minister and ask how the UK expects to be compliant with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) when employers can state that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness, and legal sack Diabetics?

I await your reply.

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The next morning I received the following email from UK government epetitions:

Dear Kenneth McAlpine,

Before your signature is added to the e-petition "Abolish the Equality and Human Rights Commission." you need to confirm your email address by clicking on the link below:

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/signatures/2815306/verify/3qBsA0gqSskjrcpUOVa1

If you don't want to sign this e-petition or believe this message was sent in error, please ignore this email.

Thanks,

I then sent the following email to the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can I make an Employment Tribunal Judgment public by posting on the internet?

Can I also make the evidence used at the same Employment Tribunal public by posting on the internet?

Mr K McAlpine

Later that afternoon I received the following email reply from the London Employment Appeal Tribunal:

Dear Mr McAlpine:

Thank you for your email.

Regarding your first point, the Employment Appeal Tribunal asserts copyright in its judgments, however they may be reproduced, wholly or in part, free of charge and without requiring a formal licence subject to the following conditions:

* the source is acknowledged in a way which enables the original to be easily found or obtained (e.g. online by providing a link or in print by quoting the EAT's address and the reference of the appeal)

* it is reproduced accurately and without alteration (and if translated into another language, a competent translator is used)

* it is not used in a confusing, misleading or derogatory way

* it is not used for the purpose of promoting corporate, personal or political interests or views

* it is not used in any context which could be viewed as undignified association

* it is not used in any circumstances which are knowingly or potentially libellous or slanderous of individuals, companies or organisations

Regarding your second point, I regret that the EAT cannot advise you, and I suggest that you seek advice from a solicitor.

Mark Harrington

Operational Support Manager

Employment Appeal Tribunal

That evening I received the following email from the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal:

Mr McAlpine,

Your email below has been forwarded to this office. Can you verify if you have a registered claim at this office and if so can you provide the case reference number.

Regards

John Sadler

Office Manager

ET Edinburgh

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I do not have an 'active' case.

I did have a case at the Glasgow ET.

Once again, my questions are:

Can I make an Employment Tribunal Judgment public by posting on the internet?

Can I also make the evidence used at the same Employment Tribunal public by posting on the internet?

Mr McAlpine

The next day I received an email from the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

Our ref: ENQ/1023114-2011/CDT Admin CIU

Private & Confidential

Mr K McAlpine

19 November 2011

Dear Mr McAlpine

Professional conduct

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is the independent regulatory body of the Law Society. We regulate the standards of behaviour and professional performance of solicitors and law firms.

If you wish to report conduct issues or regulatory concerns about a person or firm that is regulated by the SRA the details are as follows:

Solicitors Regulation Authority

Ipsley Court

Berrington Close

Redditch

B98 0TD

Email: report@sra.org.uk

www.sra.org.uk/contactus

I have enclosed a copy of the Report form for you to complete.

If you were a client of a solicitor and you want to complain about the service that you received from your solicitor, please contact the Legal Ombudsman. The Legal Ombudsman is an independent body that has formal powers to resolve complaints about lawyers for consumers.

The SRA does not investigate nor do we offer compensation for issues about the service that you received from your solicitor.

The Legal Ombudsman's contact details are:-

Legal Ombudsman

PO Box 15870

Birmingham

B30 9EB

www.legalombudsman.org.uk

Tel: 0300 555 0333

Email: enquiries@legalombudsman.org.uk

Thank you for contacting the SRA.

Yours sincerely

Two days later I sent a completed report to the Solicitors Regulation Authority by email:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a completed report form and supporting documentation.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Attached document read:

Details of your report

Name of the person you are reporting: Angela Gill

Name of the firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius

Firms' address and postcode:

Condor House

5-10 St. Paul's Churchyard

London, EC4M 8AL

Firms' phone number: +44 (0)20 3201 5000

Has the person you are reporting acted for you in the past?

It is important for us to know if you are complaining about someone who is or has acted for you as your solicitor. Please note that if you want to complain about he service that you received from your solicitor, you need to contact the Legal Ombudsman directly – see contact details as the end of this form.

a) Has the solicitor's firm acted for you in the past about this matter?

No

b) Does the individual you're reporting to us act for another person?

Yes

If the answer to the above question is "Yes", who is the solicitor acting for? Oracle Corporation UK Limited

Please describe your concerns as clearly as possible, using dates where applicable.

Please see attached document:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been the victim of fraud. I have had to pay around £10,700.00 to a client who deceived not only myself, but also a tribunal and subsequent appeal Courts.

Although I stay in Scotland, this client, and its employees are all resident in England.

I have outlined some of the fraudulent activity below with supporting hard factual evidence, but I can supply a lot more examples if or when this is required.

I trust that this will be more than enough to start an investigation into the fraudulent activity of this client.

Yours faithfully,

Mr K McAlpine

WITNESS COLLUSION

The following witnesses have clearly read each other's witness statements when producing their own witness statement. As a large legal firm and Barrister represented this client, surely the Solicitor and/or Barrister must have been aware that this was happening?

Nicholas Cooper

"As his Manager and the person most closely involved, Phil Snowden's statement deals with all these matters."

\- Nicholas Cooper Witness Statement, Page 8,  Paragraph 6

"The details of these discussions and e-mails are dealt with in Phil Snowden's and Cathy Temple's evidence."

\- Nicholas Cooper Witness Statement, Page 9,  Paragraph 23

Catherine Temple

"Simone Harch's statement then deals with her involvement with Mr McAlpine until April 2006."

\- Catherine Temple Witness Statement, Page 10,  Paragraph 7

"Both Phil Snowden and Nick Cooper refer to this initiative in their statements."

\- Catherine Temple Witness Statement, Page 11,  Paragraph 12

Malcolm Thompson

"I am aware of, and have read the statements of both Phil Snowden and Cathy Temple."

\- Malcolm Thompson Witness Statement, Page 12,  Paragraph 7

This collusion has only one purpose, to invent a 'story' which all witnesses are 'straight on', in order to pervert the course of justice, and allow the client to win costs against the other party, otherwise, what is the point of the collusion?

FABRICATED EVIDENCE

There are six pages of Tribunal evidence, and the Tribunal numbering shows pages numbered 329 to 334 (Pages 14 to 19). These six pages were part of "Document 53" entitled "Template Oracle RIF sheet Support and OD" which was produced by the client for the joint Bundle of Documents used at the Tribunal (Page 13).

Within the six pages, there are four emails, the dates and subject headings are:

DATE, SUBJECT

2 February 2006, [Strictly Confidential] RIF template - names and details needed from Support and OD

23 March 2006, //Customer Care Professional

21 February 2006, FW: confidential

4 February 2006, confidential

There are a number of inconsistencies in this document, which, because it has been lodged as one document, is meant to look like one email chain. These inconsistencies are:

The dates make it impossible for these four emails to be part of one connected email chain, ie: the email dated 23 March 2006 must pre-date the email dated 2 February 2006, but does not?

There are three completely separate subject headings, which signify three completely separate emails.

The attachment "Template Oracle RIF Spreadsheet Support and OD (7th Feb 2006).xls" on Page 18 is attached to the email dated "23 March 2006", with the subject heading " //Customer Care Professional", which Malcolm Thompson did not receive.

The attachments to the email dated "4 February 2006", with the subject heading "confidential" are two word documents and "UK OSDM TALENT 27-oct-05 nc.XLS". This email was sent from "Nicholas Cooper" to "Malcolm Thompson", who then forwarded this email to "Catherine Temple".

In all of these emails, "Malcolm Thompson" did not receive the attachment "Template Oracle RIF Spreadsheet Support and OD (7th Feb 2006).xls" in February 2006. But the whole purpose of this document and its six pages was to create evidence that would show that Malcolm Thompson on 2 February 2006 received the document "Template Oracle RIF Spreadsheet Support and OD (7th Feb 2006).xls".

Witness statements state as follows:

"I confirm that I identified Mr McAlpine's role as potentially redundant in a spreadsheet seeking possible candidates for redundancy sent to me in February 2006."

\- Witness Statement of Malcolm Thompson,  Paragraph 2.

In the Tribunal judgment it states:

The client conned the Tribunal into thinking that Malcolm Thompson had received the document "Template Oracle RIF Spreadsheet Support and OD (7th Feb 2006).xls" in February 2006, when in fact, there was no evidence whatsoever to prove this.

ALTERED EVIDENCE

The name "McAlpine" on the alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list is false.

 Pages 20 and 21 show two pages, page 20 shows the alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list, Page 515, which was produced by the client for the joint Bundle of Documents used at the Tribunal. Page 21 shows the same alleged Reduction In Force (RIF) list received by Kenneth McAlpine in correspondence from the client dated 13 June 2007.

There are obvious differences:

The location of the handwriting "7998 McAlpine" is different.

Is the actual handwriting the same?

Why would there have to be any differences in the handwriting at all?

Why is "7998 McAlpine" written in handwriting at all, in a fully typed sheet?

The Gay Brogden email 23 March 2006 has been altered.

There are three pages involved in this altered evidence, the first page, is  Page 17, showing the "//Customer Care Professional" email dated 23 March 2006 at 23:00:11, page 332, which was produced by the client for the joint Bundle of Documents used at the Tribunal, and is listed as part of Document 53 in the joint Bundle of Documents.

The first half of the second page,  Page 18, marked page 333 of the Tribunal bundle, is the end of the same email "//Customer Care Professional" email dated 23 March 2006 at 23:00:11, which contains the attachment "Template Oracle RIF Spreadsheet Support and OD (7th Feb 2006).xls", and which was produced by the Respondent for the joint Bundle of Documents used at the Tribunal.

The third page,  Page 22, marked Page 402 of the Tribunal bundle, is the exact same email "//Customer Care Professional" email dated 23 March 2006 at 23:00:11, however this email does not contain the attachment "Template Oracle RIF Spreadsheet Support and OD (7th Feb 2006).xls".

This is only two examples, there are many other documents where evidence has been altered by comparing the original document with the document that was produced as 'evidence'.

WITNESS PERJURY

There are also many other cases of witness perjury, but these cases would require close inspection of witness statements and evidence.

However, regarding witness perjury, it is worth quoting the following Barrister in another case against this client:

http://www.silicon.com/management/cio-insights/2004/10/29/oracle-facing-370000-sex-discrimination-claim-39125438/

James Laddie, Barrister, stated: "The respondent's [Oracle's] witnesses lied all the way through the liability proceedings,"

I hope that proceedings can be brought against this client, as they have fraudulently gained around £10,700.00 from an innocent member of the public.

After sending this report I received the following automated email reply from the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

Thank you for contacting the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Please accept this response as acknowledgment of your email which is receiving our attention.

For information only our postal and telephone contact details are:

Solicitors Regulation Authority

Ipsley Court

Berrington Close

Redditch

Worcestershire

B98 0TD

The next day I received an email reply from Diabetes UK:

Hello Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your message I am sorry to hear that your employment case has been unsuccessful.

I do apologise for the delay in getting back to you. We have been experiencing a high volume of enquiries recently.

I am not sure that the advocacy service would be best placed to respond to your enquiry and will contact you again shortly once I have spoken to colleagues.

Best Regards

Jennifer

Diabetes UK Advocacy Service

On 23 November 2011 I received the following email from the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

Please see attached letter.

Attached letter read:

Our ref: POL/1023472-2011/CDT Admin CIU

Private & Confidential

Mr K McAlpine

23 November 2011

Dear Mr McAlpine

Professional conduct

Report about Angela Margaret Gill of MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS

Thank you for your email of 21 November 2011 giving us information about Angela Margaret Gill of MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority's ("SRA") purpose is to set, maintain and secure standards of professional behaviour from the firms and individuals we regulate and information such as this helps us swiftly to identify risks to the public.

We will carefully assess the information you have provided along with any other related information we hold, to decide whether we should take action or make further enquiries. If we need to seek further information from you we will contact you again.

We regret that we do not provide updates on our enquiries, partly because our enquiries may include confidential information but also because we try to devote our limited resources to taking the actions necessary to protect the public. However, when we do take formal action, the results are usually published on our website.

We cannot offer legal advice, or help with court action. If you need further advice, please see www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights.

Even if the information you have provided does not lead to immediate regulatory action, it will be retained and would be reconsidered if further information about the firm or individual were received.

Please note that the SRA has no powers to award you financial compensation in respect of a solicitor's misconduct. If you wish to claim compensation for the inadequate level of service you have received from your own solicitor you may wish to contact the Legal Ombudsman as follows:

Telephone: 0300 555 0333

Email: enquiries@legalombudsman.org.uk

Post: PO Box 15870, Birmingham B30 9EB

Further details about how we regulate firms and solicitors can be found on our website at www.sra.org.uk.

Again, thank you for supplying us with this information, which is much appreciated.

Yours sincerely

Tracey O'Callaghan

Customer Services Officer

Solicitors Regulation Authority

Later that afternoon I sent another email to Katy Clark, my Member of Parliament:

Dear Katy,

I wrote to you around a week ago, but have not received a reply.

Can you send a letter to both Trevor Phillips, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Lynne Featherstone, Equalities Minister, asking:

<start here>

Why stating that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness, was not direct disability discrimination in the Employment Tribunal, and higher Tribunals and Courts in the UK?

What factual evidence does the UK have which allows the UK to state that 240 million people with Diabetes could have prolonged periods of time off due to illness?

Do you see this as being a public interest matter for the 240 million people who have Diabetes?

I see these questions and answers as being a public interest matter, and will therefore publish these questions and answers in the public domain.

If you do not answer these questions, I will publish the questions with "No comment" as the answer.

<end here>

Can you send me a copy of the letter that you send, and send me any replies.

Thanks

Mr K McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service:

Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your email of 18 November concerning the online posting of your Employment Tribunal judgement, and evidence used at that judgment.

A party is free to post their judgement on the internet. However, with respect to your second question, unless prevented from publishing by a court or tribunal order, it is not for the tribunal (or Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service) to give this kind of guidance. It may be advisable to notify any other persons affected by its disclosure (and to give them time to object to publication), or to seek their consent (which should not be withheld unreasonably). However, as noted, this is ultimately a decision for you.

Regards,

Dave

David Winrow

Employment Policy Team

Four days later I received an email from the Public Petitions Committee of The Scottish Parliament:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Please find attached the draft template for your proposed petition which contains some questions and comments on the admissibility of the petition. The Public Petitions Committee is unable to consider a petition asking it to consider a specific decision of the courts and a petition asking it to do so is likely to be inadmissible. As you have noted in the template your local MSP had indicated to you that they were unable to intervene in judicial proceedings, this also applies to the Scottish Parliament and in turn it's Committees.

Kind regards

Alison Wilson

Assistant Clerk

Public Petitions Committee

The Scottish Parliament

Attached document read:

The Scottish Parliament

Public Petition

PLEASE REFER TO GUIDANCE NOTES AT THE BACK OF THIS FORM.

1. Name of petitioner

Kenneth McAlpine

2. Petition title

3. Petition text

Diabetes, employment and prolonged periods of time off due to illness.

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a full public enquiry to provide an explanation as to why the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Session does not find any discrimination when an employer states that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness.

[Mr McAlpine: As I set out in my original comments (below in italics) it is my understanding that Diabetes is already covered by the Equality Act 2010 and as such workers with Diabetes are already protected under that Act. What it appears you are seeking is for the Public Petitions Committee to urge the Scottish Government to hold a public enquiry into the outcome of a particular case. As I previously set out the Public Petitions Committee is unable to consider a petition asking it to consider a specific decision of the courts and a petition asking it to do so is likely to be inadmissible. As you noted below your local MSP had indicated to you that they were unable to intervene in judicial proceedings, this also applies to the Scottish Parliament and in turn it's Committees.

Diabetes is already covered by the Equality Act 2010 and employment tribunals and courts apply the relevant law. The Scottish Government cannot undertake the sort of review you are seeking or provide you with an explanation of their decisions. The Scottish Government cannot become involved in reviewing individual legal decisions made by tribunals or Courts in cases with their own particular circumstances.]

[Mr McAlpine: The Public Petitions Committee is unable to consider a specific decision of the Courts or of an Employment Tribunal. Also Employment and Equality issues are matters that are reserved to Westminster. The Committee is also unable to adjudicate or intervene on matters of personal interest and from the information provided it appears that you are seeking an enquiry into a specific case? A petition which asks the Committee to do something it is unable to do is likely to be considered inadmissible.

It is my understanding that Diabetes is already covered by the The Equality Act 2010 and as such workers with Diabetes are already protected under that Act as they were under the previous Disability Discrimination legislation.

It is unclear from the information that you have provided what it is you are seeking the Scottish Government to change. Can I refer you to the guidance notes on completing sections 4 and 5 which can be found at the end of this document as it would be helpful for the Committee if you were able to provide some background information?]

4. Action taken to resolve issues of concern before submitting the petition

Glasgow Employment Tribunal did not find any discrimination.

Edinburgh Employment Appeal Tribunal did not find any discrimination.

Court of Session did not find any discrimination.

I have contacted my MSP, who was unable to do anything as an appeal was the only option, and an MSP cannot interfere with judicial proceedings.

Diabetes UK did help to get me a pro-bono lawyer during the Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing.

This matter is worldwide, as "Diabetes" was stated and ruled on.

[Mr McAlpine: what the Committee would be looking for here is any information on what you have done to address the issue prior to submitting the petition. For example have you approached your local MSP for assistance in bringing about the change you are seeking or have you sought advice / support from organisations such as Diabetes UK? Do they consider the matter to be of concern on a Scotland wide basis?]

5. Petition background information

There are around 245 million Diabetics worldwide. The Scottish legal system has ruled that stating that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness is NOT discrimination. This IS direct discrimination as it is a stereotypical assumption, stereotype is Diabetes, assumption is prolonged period of time off due to illness. Around 245 million people are going to be absolutely livid because the Scottish legal system agrees that they could have prolonged period of time off due to illness. Justice is a responsibility of the Scottish Government, and Diabetics have not had justice. Group action lawsuits could result from the many countries that allow them.

6. Do you wish your petition to be hosted on the Parliament's website as an e-petition?

YES (Delete as appropriate). If you answer "NO" please proceed to section 9.

7. Closing date for e-petition

One year after initial acceptance and posting [Mr McAlpine: e-petitions normally run for between 4 and 6 weeks from the wording being finalised.]

The next day I sent the following email to the UK Ministry of Justice:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I had to pay around £7,000.00 in costs.

Please see the attached letter, as the motion for costs has the case listed as "Kenneth McAlpine - v - EAT".

Am I correct in saying that in an appeal from a decision of The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), costs are not awarded?

I believe that even although this case was listed as "Kenneth McAlpine - v - EAT", the respondent managed to gain around £7,000.00 in costs from me.

Is this correct?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Attached document read:

McGrigors LLP

Princes Exchange

I Earl Grey Street

Edinburgh EH3 gAQ

Mr K R McAlpine

SENT BY POST AND EMAIL

19 February 2010

Our Ref MFH/EFS/OR0013.000001

Dear Mr McAlpine

You v Oracle Corporation UK Ltd

Motion for expenses

I enclose by way of intimation a motion which I will enrol with the court on Thursday 25 February 2010.

Yours sincerely,

Maureen Hall

Senior Associate

For McGrigors LLP

Rule 23.2 (2)

FORM 23.2

FORM OF MOTION

PART 1

Name of Appellant: Kenneth McAlpine

Name of Respondents: Oracle Corporation UK Ltd

Name and nature of Petition

Court case number: XA165/08

Date of last interlocutor: 12 February 2010

ls case due in court during the next seven days? Yes/No*

(lf Yes, state reason)

PART II

Name of firm enrolling Motion.......McGRlGORS LLP.............

Agent for: Respondents Ref No: DJT/MFH/EFS/OR0013.000001

E-mail address: david.turner@mcgrigors.com

Rutland Exchange No....723301 .... Town.......EDlNBURGH.......

Tel No.............0131 777 7453..... Fax No.0131 777 7003............

Date of enrolment of motion: 25.02.10

Has motion been intimated? Yes/ No* lf yes, give date: 22.02.10

The motions are:-

"On behalf of the Respondents, the court having refused the application for leave to appeal, to find the Appellant liable to the Respondents in the expenses occasioned by the application."

PART III

MOTION SLIP

General Department only

Name of case: Kenneth McAlpine - v - EAT

Name of firm ....McGRIGORS LLP

Estimated duration

(a) less than 10 mins

On 1 December 2011 I sent the following email to the Public Petitions Committee of The Scottish Parliament:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email below outlining that I cannot petition the Scottish Parliament on employers being lawfully able to state that Diabetes could result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness.

I must however correct you on a number of points you made on my petition before we close this:

"it is my understanding that Diabetes is already covered by the Equality Act 2010 and as such workers with Diabetes are already protected under that Act."

You are correct that Diabetes is already covered, you are incorrect to state that this means they are protected. People are covered against burglary, but that does not protect them against burglary.

"What it appears you are seeking is for the Public Petitions Committee to urge the Scottish Government to hold a public enquiry into the outcome of a particular case."

No. It was stated "Diabetes" could result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness, that is what the evidence stated, and that was what the Tribunals and Courts had to rule on, whether Diabetes could result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness was discrimination or not.

This may result in Diabetics in other countries being able to take out group action lawsuits against the Scottish Government, because I believe that the Scottish Government selects and employs Judges.

Regards,

Mr K McAlpine

The next day I received an email reply from Diabetes UK:

Hello Mr McAlpine

I have been trying to contact an adviser at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) about the questions you have asked. Unfortunately I have not been able to speak to anyone as yet but I have a number now which should be answered on Tuesday between 9.30 and 12.30. I will contact you again when I have spoken to a representative from the EHRC

As the EHRC is the specialist organisation and works in key areas, including influencing the development and amending of all government policy and making sure that policy takes into consideration the importance of equality, diversity and human rights you may also want to contact them regarding your enquiry about having the decision overturned.

I have also spoke to our public affairs manager regarding the possibility of Diabetes UK contacting the Equalities Minister and she will look into this.

Best Regards

Jennifer

Diabetes UK Advocacy Service

Later that evening I sent an email reply to Diabetes UK:

Dear Jennifer,

Thank you for your update.

I have contacted the EHRC on numerous occasions over the past 5 years, but they have done nothing, and continue to do nothing.

As Diabetes UK is one of, if not the largest organisation representing people with a disability, I would expect the EHRC to bend over backwards to aid Diabetes UK.

I expect that all that is going to happen is that you get one of call centre employees who state that it may be discrimination but that the EHRC can do nothing about it.

In other words, they care not a jot about Diabetes or equality.

Excuse my pessimistic view, but it stems from years of experience dealing with the EHRC.

Regards,

Kenneth

Chapter 5

On the afternoon of 8 December 2011 I received the following email from Diabetes UK:

Hello Mr McAlpine

I have spoken to an adviser on the advisers advice-line at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. They have now emailed me their response which I have copied below. Unfortunately the advice is that the EHRC is not empowered to intervene to have a ruling overturned and that in any event this is not how the judicial process operates. I have included the content of their email below:

The Commission's functions and powers are set out in the Equality Act 2006 and these are broadly to:

* provide assistance to those taking legal proceedings in relation to equality

* take legal cases on behalf of individuals or intervene in litigation to test and extend the right to equality and human rights

* apply to the court for injunctions and interdicts where we consider it likely that an unlawful act will be committed

* conduct inquiries, investigations and assessments to examine the behaviour of institutions

* enforce the public sector equality duty, issuing Compliance Notices where we believe the law has been breached

* awards to organisations

* provide education and training to make individuals and institutions aware of their rights and responsibilities

* produce guidance and statutory codes of practice to support individuals and organisations to comply with the law and promote good practice, and

* to use our influence and authority to lead new debates, building our arguments from the evidence we collect and publish.

As you may be aware, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has discretion as to whether to grant legal assistance under section 28 of the Equality Act in any particular case. However, as I am sure you will appreciate, the resources of the Commission compared with the volume of requests for assistance are such that it can only provide legal support in a small proportion of cases. The Commission therefore focuses on a number of key priority areas in order to ensure the greatest impact, such as cases which would be likely to have a significant impact on a large number of people (the public benefit test). The Commission also focuses on cases which would have a significant impact on the law by clarifying a previously untested area of law or by addressing any gaps in the law. In considering these, the Commission would also look at the merits of a complaint and its likelihood of success.

Your client also asked about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. This is an international human rights agreement to protect and promote the human rights of disabled people. The UK Government ratified the agreement in June 2009 which means that the Government must comply with the legal rights and obligations contained within the Convention. The EHRC is one of the designated independent bodies which monitor the progress being made by the Governments of Britain in implementing the Convention and report on that progress to the UN. The Commission also provides advice to disabled people and public authorities about the Convention.

It should be noted, however, that if a disabled person believes that their rights under the Convention have been breached they cannot take the government or any other public body to Court as the Convention is not part of our domestic law. However, the Convention can play an important supporting role when cases are taken to Court under the Human Rights Act or disability discrimination legislation.

I appreciate this is probably not the response you had hoped for and unfortunately Diabetes UK cannot offer you any legal advice as to what your options might be.

As you will see from the EHRC response they are one of the designated independent bodies which monitor the progress being made by the Governments in implementing the Convention and report on that progress to the UN. They also provide advice to disabled people and public authorities about the Convention. As such I think they would be the relevant people to direct questions to about the UK governments compliance to the Convention.

I am sorry we have not been able to provide any direct assistance on this occasion.

Best Regards

Jennifer

Diabetes UK Advocacy Service

An hour later I sent an email reply to Diabetes UK:

Dear Jennifer,

Thank you for your email.

What we have left here is this (please correct me if I am wrong):

An employer in the UK is legally allowed to sack someone with diabetes because they could be off sick alot in the future.

Diabetes UK have accepted that fact, and are doing nothing about it.

The EHRC are doing nothing about it, even although they have stated that they "provide assistance to those taking legal proceedings in relation to equality", and that they concentrate on "cases which would be likely to have a significant impact on a large number of people (the public benefit test)".

Why is the EHRC doing nothing about a judgment which affects the 2.8 million Diabetics in the UK?

Why has Diabetes UK just accepted the fact that the EHRC is doing nothing about a judgment which affects the 2.8 million Diabetics in the UK?

Can you provide an answer to these two questions please.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Five days later I received another email from Diabetes UK:

Hello Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your message. You ask for an answer to two questions, firstly why the EHRC are doing nothing about a judgement which affects 2.8 million diabetics in the UK and why Diabetes UK just accepted the fact that the EHRC is doing nothing about a judgement which affects the 2.8 million diabetics in the UK.

I am afraid we cannot speak for the Commission. I contacted them and was informed that they are not empowered to intervene to have a ruling overturned. As they say in their email, although they can provide legal assistance to people in relation to equality, they go on to say that they only have the resources to provide legal support in a small proportion of cases. For a further explanation of why the Commission cannot act in your case I would suggest contacting the Commission directly.

I contacted the Commission and asked if there was anything they could do to intervene. I don't think Diabetes UK has any other option than to accept what the Commission tell us about what they can and cannot do.

Diabetes UK does not accept that employers should be legally allowed to sack someone with diabetes because they could be off sick a lot in the future. We do appreciate however that each case is individual and will turn on its own facts.

A large part of the workload of the Advocacy Service is in supporting people with diabetes who have been treated unfairly for a number of reasons, including in employment. We cannot provide legal advice or legal advocacy and the main form of support we are currently providing involves letter writing, sending emails and making phone calls on people's behalf.

I am sorry that you have been unable to prove your case through the legal process.

Best Regards

Jennifer

Diabetes UK Advocacy Service

On 13 December 2011 I sent the following email to Diabetes UK:

Dear Jennifer,

Thank you for your reply.

Whilst I agree with you that each individual case will turn on its own facts, I have made Diabetes UK aware of the facts that my employer stated that Diabetes could result in prolonged periods of time off in the future, and that the Tribunals and Courts did not find direct disability discrimination. That fact is indisputable, but ask yourself this question:

If I was to be made redundant correctly and legally, why did my employer have to state that Diabetes could result in prolonged periods of time off in the future and to exit me from the organisation?

If you can give me one single reason why an employer should state that Diabetes could result in prolonged periods of time off in the future, I will accept that Diabetes UK have done everything possible to help stop this discrimination.

If you cannot give me one single reason then Diabetes UK does accept that employers are legally allowed to sack someone with diabetes because they could be off sick a lot in the future because they are doing nothing about it apart from contacting the EHRC, which frankly isn't anywhere near good enough, as I have done that six times in five years.

I am about to make this whole case, judgments and evidence, and the numerous bodies I have contacted public, as I believe that it is in the public interest to do so.

Even although I probably do not need your permission to publish the various emails, I will publish them, as the public (Diabetics and their families in particular) will probably be interested whether Diabetes UK and the EHRC have exhausted all steps, and indeed what steps they have taken to stop this discrimination.

Regards,

Mr McAlpine

Six days later I received an email reply from Diabetes UK:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your email dated 13.12.11.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding. I have been away from the office for several days.

I am sorry that you are disappointed with the response you have received from Diabetes UK. Unfortunately we are unable to provide you with further assistance regarding this matter.

Best Regards

Jennifer

Diabetes UK Advocacy Service

Around 23 December 2011 I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA

HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Palais des Nations

CH-1211 Geneve 10

REFERENCE: G/S0 214/48 GBR (1)

CE/GT/j1 6/2011

21 December 2011

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

I have the honour to inform you that your communication dated 25 May 2011, submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, has been registered as communication No. 6/2011. You are kindly asked to refer to the registration number in any future correspondence.

In accordance with rule 70 of the Committee's rules of procedure, a copy of the communication has been sent to the State party today, with the request that any information or observation in respect of the question of admissibility and merits of the communication should reach the Committee within six months. Any reply from the State party will be communicated to you in due course to enable you to comment thereon, if you so wish.

For information, please find herewith a copy of the Committee's rules of procedure.

You are kindly requested to indicate, in future correspondence, the kind of remedies you would like to obtain from the State party in case the Committee concludes that a violation of the Convention has taken place in the case you have submitted.

Please be aware that final decisions adopted by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are made public. Therefore, if you wish your identity not to be disclosed in the final decision, you are kindly requested to so indicate as soon as possible. Kindly note that, due to the level of publicity the Committee's decisions are likely to receive (including dissemination via Internet, which thus makes the correction and/or deletion of data circulating online virtually impossible), it may not be possible to satisfy requests for anonymity submitted after the publication of the Committee's decision. The Committee shall not be responsible to the author and/or alleged victim in any manner for any inconvenience, arising out of the author's failure to notify the Committee in a timely manner about her decision not to have the name of the alleged victim disclosed to the public at large.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

On 30 December 2011 I received the following email from the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

Our ref: MUL/1022461-2011

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I write further to our letter of 23 November 2011, regarding the information you provided about Ms Angela Margaret Gill of Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

From my understanding you are concerned that Ms Gill may have fabricated some evidence on behalf of her clients Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, which had an adverse effect on you.

I would like to confirm that the Solicitors Regulation Authority's purpose is to set, maintain and secure standards of professional behaviour from firms and individuals we regulate.

We will carefully assess the information you have provided, however in order for us to reach a firm conclusion, I would appreciate if you would provide all relevant information to us within 21 days, by 20 January 2012.

We regret, that we do not provide updates on our enquiries, partly because our enquiries may include confidential information, but also because we try to devote out limited resources to taking the actions necessary to protect the public. Therefore, if possible could please provide copies of your information rather than sending the original documents.

If after considering your matter, the information you have provided does not lead to immediate regulatory action, it will be retained and considered if further information about the firm or individual comes to light.

Please note that the SRA has no powers to award you financial compensation in respect of a solicitor's misconduct.

If I do not hear from you by the 20 January 2012, I will assume you have no further information and I will base my conclusions on the information I have before me.

I look forward to hearing you.

Sonia Sowan

It was now 2012, and on 4 January 2012 I sent the following email to both the International Disability Alliance and the European Disability Forum:

Dear Victoria,

Happy New Year.

I wrote to you a few months ago concerning a petition to the UN.

The UN have now written back asking the following:

1) "You are kindly requested to indicate, in future correspondence, the kind of remedies you would like to obtain from the State party....."

2) Publicity

Can you kindly help me understand what remedies are available in (1) by providing a list or document or internet link?

Can you also provide help in understanding how much publicity a petition gets, and whether it helps to request anonymity?

Thanks,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Later that morning I also sent an email to the Solicitors Regulation Authority:

Dear Sonia,

Happy New Year.

From the evidence that I have supplied to you in my last email, I have highlighted the following:

1: Witness Collusion

2: Fabricating Evidence

3: Altering Evidence

4: Witness Perjury

I have provided hard factual evidence of (1), (2) and (3), as this would have involved Angela Margaret Gill directly, as she was the Solicitor in charge of this case.

I do have lots of other evidence regarding (1) to (4), but I would have to be very careful of sharing this evidence with you, in case it would jeopardise a future legal case against all concerned. I do hope that you appreciate this viewpoint.

As I stated earlier, I have provided more than enough evidence to show that Angela Margaret Gill conducted a case where witness collusion, fabrication of evidence and alteration of evidence took place, and I would be unwilling to share further evidence as I think you have more than enough, and I also do not want to jeopardise further evidence in case I have already jeopardised the evidence you have already, and I give you all the further evidence, and have no evidence which I can rely on in a future legal case against all concerned.

I would also add that if you believe this case has broken the law on a number of points, and is beyond the jurisdiction of The Solicitors Regulation Authority, that you pass this information onto the relevant authority, ie: the Police.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

One week later I received the following email from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Kenneth,

Happy new year to you too!

It's great that you have submitted your complaint to the CRPD Committee.

As for your first question:

There is no list of remedies which exists; depending on the violation applicants could ask for their case to be reopened by the State, for further investigations to be conducted, compensation, formal apology, for specified laws, regulations, etc, or institutional practices to be reviewed and reformed (e.g. court practices), education and training to be conducted for officials involved in the violation.

On a broader level, you would need to think about where was the fault that led to you being left without a remedy and how can that be fixed so similar violations do not recur. On a personal level, what could you reasonably want to feel that your situation has been remedied?

just for your information, should a violation be found, the Committee will emit views, including recommendations for the State. However, these are not legally binding per se, there is no way that the Committee can hold the State to implement those recommendations. And in general, the recommendations are quite general (at least as seen by other treaty bodies). Whilst some treaty bodies have made recommendations for the State to pay compensation to the applicant, an amount has never been specified.

You can read some of the views made by treaty bodies with respect to individual complaints in this database http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/Dochome.nsf/aedb8166f5bb4158c1256640002fb9d1/df84cef52460f085c12566400041d97d?OpenDocument

Regarding your second question:

there is not much publicity of treaty body cases, at least not by the UN and the wider media rarely picks up on these cases. or if so it's usually through being informed by the applicant themselves or by NGOs. Usually an applicant will request anonymity if there's a danger for themselves or their family. It is of course up to you whether you prefer to keep your identity confidential. In any case, the State will know your identity.

If you are interested in making your case more public to raise awareness amongst the public and amongst MPs in an effort to effect greater change in the law and practices of the UK, then I would recommend that you do not keep your anonymity. It would be easier for the purposes of interviews for example.

Should you have any further questions on process or substance, please don't hesitate.

Kind regards,

Victoria

Two days later I received the following letter from my Member of Parliament, Katy Clark:

HOUSE OF COMMONS

KATY CLARK MP

06 January 2012

Our Ref: JP/MCAL01003/02091166

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Dear Mr McAlpine

Re E-Petitions

I enclose a letter dated 13th December 2011 from Sir George Young MP, Leader of the House of Commons, regarding the e-petitions site.

The Minister provides an explanation of how a signature can be added manually. I appreciate this does not answer your question about why your petition was rejected. I would be very happy to make further enquiries if you have not yet been able to publish a petition on the website. If you have not been able to do so please get in touch and let me know.

If you feel I can be of any further assistance on this or any other matter please do not hesitate to get in touch.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely

Katy Clark

Member of Parliament

LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

26 Whitehall

LONDON SW1A 2WH

Tel: 020 7276 1005 Fax: 020 7276 1006

Our Ref: MP319900

Attached letter read:

13 December 2011

Dear Katy

e-Petitions

Thank you for your letter of November 16 regarding e-petitions on behalf of your constituent Mr Kenneth R McAlpine. I am sorry your constituent is experiencing problems with the site.

It will be possible to manually add your constituent's signature to an e-petition. In order to do this, please send an e-mail entitled 'Manual Signature' to petitions(a,commonsleader.x.gsi.ogv.uk with the following information

Name:

E-Mail Address:

Postal Address:

Petition: e.g (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uldpetitions/987654)

It may take up to 7 days for your signature to be added to the petition in these cases. This email address can be used for any problems that your constituent maybe experiencing with the site.

I hope that your constituent finds this information helpful.

Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP

Katy Clark MP,

House of Commons.

On 24 January 2012 I received the following email from my Member of Parliament, Katy Clark:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

My apologies for the delay in responding to you.

Attached you will find letters to both Trevor Phillips, Chair of EHRC and Lynne Featherstone, Equalities Minister raising the questions you brought to me. You will note in the letter to Mr Phillips I have included a copy of the email correspondence between you and various EHRC advisors for his information. The information contained therein will better allow him to consider the points raised.

I shall be in touch when a response is received.

Best wishes,

Katy

Katy Clark

Member of Parliament

The first letter attached to this email read:

KATY CLARK MP

Lynne Featherstone

Equalities Minister

Home Office

Direct Communications Unit

2 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DF

Our Ref: PR/MCAL01003/02091166

24 January 2012

Dear Mr McAlpine

Re: Kenneth McAlpine

I have been approached by the above constituent in relation to concerns he has regarding disability discrimination.

The background to Mr McAlpine's enquiry relates to what he believes to be disability discrimination. He was made redundant in 2006 and states this decision was made based on his diabetic condition increasing the possibility of prolonged periods of absence due to illness. His employers accepted that he had, in fact, been absent for only 2 days sickness absence in a 2 year period. I have attached for reference a summary provided previously by Mr McAlpine.

Mr McAlpine has been engaged in correspondence with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission over the last 3 months in relation to this, and was advised that his circumstances showed the 'potential for disability discrimination' though they declined to become involved.

Mr McAlpine has pursued this matter unsuccessfully in a number of courts and having exhausted the legal avenues available to him wishes the following questions to be answered –

1. Why stating that diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness was not direct disability discrimination in the Employment Tribunal and higher Tribunals and Courts in the UK?

2. What factual evidence is held which allows the UK to state that 240 million people with diabetes could have prolonged periods of time off due to illness?

3. Do you see this as being a public interest matter for the 240 million people who have diabetes?

I would be grateful if you would consider the questions posed and provide answers accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Katy Clark MP

The second letter attached to this email read:

KATY CLARK MP

Mr Trevor Phillips

Equality & Human Rights Commission

3 More London

Riverside Tooley Street

London

SE1 2RG

Our Ref: PR/MCAL01003/02091166

24 January 2012

Dear Mr Phillips

Re: Kenneth McAlpine

I have been approached by the above constituent in relation to difficulties he has experienced with the EHRC.

Mr McAlpine has been engaged in correspondence with EHRC over the last 3 months in relation to disability discrimination, though I believe there has been previous contact. I have enclosed a copy of the emails for reference.

The background to Mr McAlpine's enquiry relates to what he believes to be disability discrimination. He was made redundant in 2006 and states this decision was made based on his diabetic condition increasing the possibility of prolonged periods of absence due to illness. His employers accepted that he had, in fact, been absent for only 2 days sickness absence in a 2 year period.

Mr McAlpine is concerned that he is not being adequeately or properly assisted by EHRC. As you will read, he was advised that the facts stated by him indicate 'potential disability discrimination' and to his ends, Mr McAlpine feels that he should be assisted by the organisation. He wishes to know why the Equality & Human Rights Commission decline to become involved in the matter. I would be grateful if you would be explicit in your reasoning.

I await your response accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Katy Clark MP

That same day I sent a letter to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Mr K.R. McAlpine

24 January 2012

Communication Number: 6/2011

OHCHR

Petitions Team

Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 21 December 2011, in which you stated that my communication had been accepted. In this letter you also requested that I should provide the kind of remedies I would like to obtain from the State party, and whether I would prefer to remain anonymous.

I do not know where to start with a legal system that believes that diabetes, which encompasses some 240 million people worldwide, could result in prolonged periods of time off in the future, and that it is legally acceptable to end a diabetics employment, despite this particular diabetic only having 2 days absence in two years.

However, I will try to keep this short, but please bear in mind that it has not just been myself that has suffered at the hands of these "judgements", but my wife and two young daughters have also suffered.

Legal System

There is something fundamentally wrong with a legal system in which the innocent are guilty, the innocent have their credibility destroyed in a public judgement, the innocent pay for being innocent, the guilty are innocent, the guilty commit perjury, fabricate evidence, alter evidence, witnesses collude and fraud takes place, and the guilty receive payments for these crimes.

The judgements reached in this case have not been due to unqualified or inexperienced Judges, these judgements have not been due to error as there have been six hearings and appeals, the state laws were available to these Judges to declare disability discrimination, and these state laws have been successfully used by many people and judges over some sixteen years.

There is a famous saying that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

A full enquiry must be conducted to uncover the truth as to why these judgements believe that it is legally correct to end a diabetic's employment because diabetes could result in prolonged periods of time off in the future. This enquiry should also determine why the Scottish legal system allows perjury, fabricated documents, altered documents, witness collusion and fraud to take place in the determination of cases.

If a credible enquiry is to take place, this enquiry should not be conducted by the United Kingdom into its own failings.

The findings of an enquiry should also concentrate on preventing future occurrences of injustice, and any Solicitors, Advocates, Barristers and Judges involved in this dreadful case, should be removed from their positions, if the enquiry finds that they allowed perjury, fabricated documents, altered documents, witness collusion or fraud to take place in this case.

The United Kingdom should also allow Tribunal and Court proceedings to be recorded, unless all parties agree beforehand not to record. A just and uncorrupted legal system has nothing to hide from being recorded; an unjust and corrupt legal system has everything to hide.

Lost Opportunity

The Petitioner also seeks reparation and damages arising out of the violation of the rights of the Petitioner, including:

a) The original amount claimed in the original Employment Tribunal claim as a lost opportunity and reparation.

This would be just satisfaction for the Petitioner, and the United Kingdom can, if they so wish, recover some or all of these costs from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in the Courts.

b) Any costs incurred in bringing this Communication.

c) Any costs incurred in the domestic courts, including awards of legal expenses against the Petitioner annulled.

Criminal Acts

As stated earlier, there have been a number of criminal acts committed during this case, including perjury, fabricated evidence, altered evidence, witness collusion and fraud. This was pointed out by the Petitioner, who is not legally qualified, throughout this case, and was evident to Judges, Barristers, Advocates, Solicitors and witnesses.

Relevant authorities must investigate these criminal acts, and the guilty punished according to law, in order not to undermine the legal system and to prevent these criminal acts from happening again in other cases.

Publicity

The Petitioner does not wish to be anonymous.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Around three days later I received a letter from the European Court of Human Rights:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Kenneth Robert McALPINE

FOURTH SECTION

25 January 2012

ECHR-LE11.2R

CO/gmt

Application no. 40103/08 (inadmissible)

Mcalpine v. the United Kingdom

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 16 December 2011.

I should remind you that the European Convention on Human Rights does not contain any provision for appeal against a decision by which the European Court of Human Rights has declared an application inadmissible. The Court's decision declaring your application inadmissible is therefore final.

I should also point out that, by virtue of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, the Court could not deal with any further application by you which was substantially the same as the above application and which contained no relevant new information. Moreover, I should inform you that the Court and its Registry have a very heavy workload. The Registry can therefore no longer answer your letters nor accept any telephone calls from you.

Yours faithfully,

For the Registrar

Clare Ovey

Legal Secretary

The next letter I received was from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights around 16 February 2012:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

PALAIS DES NATIONS

1211 GENEVA 10,

SWITZERLAND

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR (1)

CE/NO/j1 - 6/2011

14 February 2012

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your further submission dated 24 January 2012, concerning communication No. 6/2011, which you submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

A copy of your submission has been sent to the State party for information.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

Around two days later I received the following letter from my Member of Parliament, Katy Clark:

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SW1A OAA

KATY CLARK MP

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

16 February 2012

Our Ref: PR/MCAL01003/02091166

Dear Mr McAlpine

Re: Equality and Human Rights Commission

I have now received a response to my recent letter and a copy is enclosed.

You will see that the Commission have requested additional time to look into matters. I will, of course, forward their next response upon receipt.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance meantime.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Katy Clark MP

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Katy Clark MP

House of Commons

London

SW1A OAA

Our Ref: MH/ST/261clark

Your Ref PR/MCAL01003/02091166

Date: 13 February 2012

Dear Ms Clark

Kenneth McAlpine

Mr McAlpine has been in extensive contact with the Commission. since 2007 and has a number of records on our database. In order that I may provide you with a full and extensive response as to why we are unable to assist your constituent. I would be grateful if you could allow me additional time in order to look into this matter.

Please accept my sincere apologies for any inconvenience that this may cause you or your constituent

Yours sincerely

Mark Hammond

Chief Executive

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Around 22 February 2012 I received a letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

PALAIS DES NATIONS

1211 GENEVA 10,

SWITZERLAND

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR (1)

CE/NO/j1 6/2011

20 February 2012

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

I have the honour to transmit to you, for comments, a copy of the State party's submission dated 17 February 2012, concerning the admissibility of communication No. 6/2011, which you submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Your comments on the State party's submission should reach the Committee in care of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations at Geneva, not later than 5 March 2012.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

Enclosed document read:

UK Mission Geneva

Office of the Permanent Representative

58 Avenue Louis Casai

1216 Cointrin

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (0) 22 918 2358

Fax: +41 (0) 22 918 2377

www.ukungeneva.fco.gov.uk

17 February 2012

Petitions and Enquires Section

Human Rights Treaties Division

OHCHR Palais des Nations

8-14 Avenue de la Paix

CH-1211 Geneva 10

Dear Sir or Madam,

SUBJECT: COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BY MR. KENNETH R MCALPINE.

YOUR REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR(1)

With reference to the notification of 21 December 2011, the UK wishes to challenge the admissibility of the communication from Mr Kenneth McAlpine, dated 25 May 2011, that has been submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We request that the admissibility of the communication be considered separately from the merits of the complaint.

The UK considers Mr McAlpine's communication to be inadmissible on the following three grounds.

(1) The issues Mr McAlpine refers to in his communication occurred prior to the Optional Protocol coming into force in the UK.

Article 2(f) of the Optional Protocol states that the Committee shall regard a communication inadmissible when "the facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State Party concerned unless those facts continued after that date".

The Optional Protocol came into force in the UK on 6 September 2009. The central incident of Mr McAlpine's communication is his redundancy, which took place on 10 July 2006. All the judicial hearings which examined the facts of Mr McAlpine's redundancy also took place before that date.

(2) The issues that Mr McAlpine refers to in his communication have been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Article 2(c) of the Optional Protocol states that the Committee shall regard a communication inadmissible when The same matter has already been examined by the Committee or has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement".

Mr McAlpine submitted his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR). The Court found that his application was inadmissible because it "did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the (European) Convention (on Human Rights) or its protocols". It is clear from this that the ECtHR examined the substance of Mr McAlpine's application in order to come to this conclusion.

(3) Mr McAlpine's complaint is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated.

Article 2(e) of the Optional Protocol states that the Committee shall regard a communication inadmissible when: "It is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated". The UK notes that in this respect, other human rights bodies have also stated that "it is not the Committee's role to replace the domestic authorities in the assessment of the facts."

The communication is essentially based upon the same facts as Mr McAlpine used to challenge the redundancy decision that was considered and clearly rejected by the UK's national authorities. It does not explain the legal basis on which Mr McAlpine could claim a breach of the Convention by the UK in the way its national authorities treated his challenge to his redundancy'

Mr McAlpine alleges that the UK has not effectively prohibited disability discrimination because his former employers made him redundant on the basis of his disability; and that in dismissing these claims, the UK legal system did not provide him with a fair hearing thereby condoning the alleged discrimination.

Mr McAlpine accepts that the United Kingdom had legislation prohibiting disability discrimination -The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ("DDA 1995") \- which at the time of his redundancy prohibited direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and less favourable treatment on the ground of disability in the workplace. Mr McAlpine's challenge of the decision of the Employment Tribunal is in effect requesting that the Committee overrule the Employment Tribunal's findings of fact. Mr McAlpine provides no evidence to support his allegation that the UK legal system acted in such a way as to condone the alleged discrimination.

My Government remains at your disposal should you require any further clarification or information.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Gooderham

Around four days later I received the following letter from my Member of Parliament, Katy Clark:

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SW1A OAA

KATY CLARK MP

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

29 February 2012

Our Ref: PR/MCAL01003/02091166

Dear Mr McAlpine

Re: Disability discrimination

I have now received a response from Lynne Featherstone MP, Minister for Equalities to my recent letter and a copy is enclosed.

I have yet to receive a response from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and it may be best to await this before discussing the responses and how best to proceed.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Katy Clark MP

Home Office

Government Equalities Office

Lynne Featherstone MP

MINISTER FOR EQUALITIES

2 Marsham Street,

London

SW1P 4DF

Katy Clark MP

House of Commons

London SW1A OAA

CTS Reference M1430/12

Your Reference PR/MCAL01003/02091166

Dear Katy,

Thank you for your letter of 24 January 2012 on behalf of your constituent Mr Kenneth McAlpine. Your constituent raises concerns about redundancy and disability discrimination. and asks three questions relating to the legal claim he brought against his employer

On your first question, it would be improper of me to question the judgment of the tribunals or Courts on this matter, particularly since it appears from the documentation you provided that it remains subject to legal proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Session

On your second question, common sense would suggest that there are some people with diabetes who may need time off due to illness and others who may not.

On your third question, judgments of the tribunals and Courts are made on a case by case basis. applying the law to the specific circumstances. It is therefore not possible to say what public interest there may be in this case.

Lynne Featherstone MP

On 3 March 2012 I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your Reference: G/SO 214/48 GBR(1)

Communication Number: 6/2011

I have received a letter and submission from yourself dated 20 February 2012.

I received this letter and submission on 3 March 2012.

At the end of the letter it states "Your comments on the State party's submission should reach the Committee in care of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations at Geneva, not later than 5 March 2012".

I trust "5 March 2012" is an error.

Can you please contact me with the correct date.

Thank you,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The next day I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Communication Number: 6/2011

Your Reference: G/SO 214/48 GBR(1)

Please find attached my comments on the State party's submission.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Mr K.R. McAlpine

4 March 2012

Communication Number: 6/2011

Your Reference: G/SO 214/48 GBR(1)

OHCHR

Petitions Team

Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 20 February 2012, and the State party's submission dated 17 February 2012, both of which I received on 3 March 2012.

I noticed in your letter that I had to reply not later than 5 March 2012, which must be a typographical error, as it takes 4 days by post for me to post a reply from my address to your address. I will however send this letter by email to you on 5 March 2012.

Admissibility and Merits

The petitioner requests that the admissibility of the communication be considered together with the merits of the complaint, which should help to reduce the need for any duplication by the Committee.

I will refer to the State party's comments using the numbering provided in their letter dated 17 February 2012:

(1)

The CRPD Optional Protocol states in Article 2 (f):

(f) The facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State Party concerned unless those facts continued after that date.

The date of entry into force of the CRPD Optional Protocol was 3 May 2008, the UK signed this on 26 February 2009, and ratified this on 7 August 2009, and it came into force in the UK on 6 September 2009.

The date of the last UK Court judgment regarding the facts in my case is dated 12 February 2010, which is almost two years after the entry into force of the CRPD Optional Protocol, and one year after the UK signed and ratified the CRPD Optional Protocol.

On the web page: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/individual.htm

It states:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Treaty Bodies - Individual Communications

23 FAQ about Treaty Body complaints procedures

Additional pointers on the admissibility of your case

"Alternatively, it is usually a sufficient ground for the Committee to examine the whole complaint if, after the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol, there has been a court decision or some other State act relating to an event preceding that date."

As there was a State act by the UK (Court decision on appeal) on 12 February 2010, this proves that the facts continued after the date of entry into force of the CRPD Optional Protocol, and are still continuing to this date.

(2)

An application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in December 2008. This application concerned a part of my case struck out by the Employment Tribunal regarding reasonable adjustments. I also lodged and joined a further application concerning alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning my rights to a fair hearing and discrimination in conjunction with other articles. A further application was also lodged and joined in December 2010 concerning awards of expenses made against me.

The European Court of Human Rights informed me on 4 April 2011 that my application, including all further joined applications, had been declared inadmissible by a single Judge from Malta, Malta is a member of the United Kingdom Commonwealth countries.

On the web page: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/individual.htm

It states:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Treaty Bodies - Individual Communications

23 FAQ about Treaty Body complaints procedures

Additional pointers on the admissibility of your case

"Second, the Committee has taken the view that, inasmuch as the Covenant provides greater protection in some respects than is available under other international instruments, facts that have already been submitted to another international mechanism can be brought before the Committee if broader protections in the Covenant are invoked. It should be added that, in the Committee's view, complaints dismissed by other international mechanisms on procedural grounds have not been substantively examined; the same facts may therefore be brought before the Committee."

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides much broader protections to people with disabilities than the European Convention on Human Rights, which does not even mention disability.

In the ECHR letter dated 29 March 2011 (contained within bundle of the main Petition) it states "The present communication is made pursuant to Rule 52A of the Rules of Court."

Rule 52A – Procedure before a single judge

1. In accordance with Article 27 of the Convention, a single judge may declare inadmissible or strike out of the Court's list of cases an application submitted under Article 34, where such a decision can be taken without further examination. The decision shall be final. The applicant shall be informed of the decision by letter.

The title of Rule 52A clearly states that it is a "Procedure", and the text of Rule52A (1) again clearly states that this procedural decision can be taken "without further examination". This wording clearly indicates that the complaint was dismissed on procedural grounds, and that it was certainly not substantively examined, and can therefore be brought before the Committee.

(3)

I am unsure as to the ground(s) of the third point submitted by the UK.

The complaint is not manifestly ill founded or not sufficiently substantiated.

No one is asking the Committee to replace the domestic authorities in the assessment of the facts. The Committee is being asked to decide whether the UK is in violation of the Convention, based on articles contained within the Convention, and the merits and evidence to allege and prove a violation of the relevant articles of the Convention.

As I understand the last few paragraphs, the UK then allege that I do not explain the legal basis on which I could claim a violation of the Convention, and that I do not provide any evidence to support my allegation that the UK legal system acted in such a way as to condone the alleged discrimination. My petition contains the sufficiently developed merits, facts and arguments of alleged violations of the Convention, and it will be the role of the Committee to decide whether violations of the Convention have taken place. The judgements of the UK legal system are sufficient evidence to show that the UK legal system has found on numerous occasions that stating that diabetes could result in future sickness absence is not discrimination.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Chapter 6

On 5 March 2012 I received the following email from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Return Receipt

Your document: URGENT: Communication Number: 6/2011 Your Reference: G/SO 214/48 GBR(1)

was received by:

at: 05/03/2012 10:18:36

Around three days later I received a letter from my Member of Parliament, Katy Clark:

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SW1A OAA

KATY CLARK MP

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

06 March 2012

Our Ref: PR/MCAL01003/02091166

Dear Mr McAlpine

Re: Disability discrimination

I have now received a response from Mark Hammond, Chief Executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and a copy is enclosed.

Once you have had the opportunity to consider this response, along with the earlier Home Office response, I would be grateful if you would contact Paula in my office on 01505 684 127 to discuss how best to proceed and to make arrangements to meet with me if you think that would be helpful.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

Katy Clark MP

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Katy Clark. MP

House of Commons

London

SW1A OAA

Our Ref MH/ST/264clark

Date 2 March 2012

Dear Ms Clark

Kenneth McAlpine

Following on from my letter to you dated 13 February 2012 I am now in a position to provide you with a detailed response as to why we were unable to assist your constituent. Mr McAlpine

Mr McAlpine has been in dialogue with the Commission since 2007 on his issue of disability discrimination. I note from the information he has supplied that he lodged a claim in the employment tribunal in 2007 which was dismissed. Subsequently he lodged an appeal in the employment appeal tribunal in 2008, and applied to the Court of Session in 2010, both of which dismissed his appeals. In 2011 he applied directly to the European Court of Human Rights who dismissed his application in its initial stage.

It is important to note that Mr McAlpine's claim for disability discrimination was dismissed at all levels. He is now appealing to the courts on the basis of whether the ET3 submitted by the respondents ought to have been accepted as well as other procedural improprieties.

This is not something with which the Commission is able to provide assistance. Our limited resources are focussed on clarifying areas of the law, testing parts of the law which are as yet untested and where there is a wider impact on affected groups within society beyond the individual who has brought the issue to our attention.

The issue is also assessed in line with the Commissions strategic priorities as well as the Public Benefit Test. Ultimately, it is for a court or tribunal to decide on whether someone has been discriminated against. In this instance. unfortunately. Mr McAlpine's claim was dismissed at all levels

Yours sincerely

Mark Hammond

Chief Executive

Around 10 March 2012 I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS OFFICE AT GENEVA

HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

REFERENCE: G/S0 214/48 GBR (1)

CE/NO/j1 6/2011

8 March 2012

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your comments dated 4 March 2012 concerning the State party's submission on admissibility of communication No. 6/2011 which you submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

I would also like to inform you that the Special Rapporteur on New Communications acting on behalf of the Committee has decided, in accordance with rule 70, paragraph 8, of its rules of procedure, to examine the question of the admissibility separately from the question of the merits.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

On 17 March 2012 I sent the following email to my Member of Parliament, Katy Clark:

Dear Katy,

I have now received the responses from both the EHRC and Lynne Featherstone.

Here is the original text of my original email:

Can you send a letter to both Trevor Phillips, Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Lynne Featherstone, Equalities Minister, asking:

<start here>

Why stating that Diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness, was not direct disability discrimination in the Employment Tribunal, and higher Tribunals and Courts in the UK?

What factual evidence does the UK have which allows the UK to state that 240 million people with Diabetes could have prolonged periods of time off due to illness?

Do you see this as being a public interest matter for the 240 million people who have Diabetes?

I see these questions and answers as being a public interest matter, and will therefore publish these questions and answers in the public domain.

If you do not answer these questions, I will publish the questions with "No comment" as the answer.

<end here>

Can you tell me why on earth you did not send the same letter sent to Lynne Featherstone to the EHRC?

The EHRC has only proceeded to give me a brief history of my case, rather than answer the questions.

I trust that you will now send a letter to Trevor Phillips with the original three questions, as you managed to do with Lynne Featherstone.

Regards,

Mr McAlpine

On 17 August 2012 I sent the following letter to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Mr K.R. McAlpine

17 August 2012

Communication Number: 6/2011

Your Reference: G/SO 214/48 GBR(1)

OHCHR

Petitions Team

Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

It has been six months since I last received any information on my Communication Number 6/2011 (letter dated 8 March 2012).

Can you provide any details on when I can expect further information on my Communication?

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Around 30 August 2012 I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

PALAIS DES NATIONS

1211 GENEVA 10,

SWITZERLAND

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR (1)

CE/NO/jl - 6/2011

28 August 2012

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 17 August 2012, concerning communication No. 6/2011, which you submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Please note that the consideration of your case is placed on the agenda of the Committee at its September 2012 session.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

On 12 September 2012 I sent the following email to the UK Department for Justice:

Dear Sir/Madam,

On your website http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/employment you state:

The Employment Tribunals are independent judicial bodies who determine disputes between employers and employees over employment rights.

However, all Judges of Courts and Tribunals are paid, ultimately by The Government of the UK, who is their employer.

This could easily lead to The Government of the UK putting pressure on Judges of Courts and Tribunals to make decisions in favour of The Government of the UK, as Judges are employees of The Government of the UK.

They are therefore not truly independent, eg: The Courts and Tribunals earn their own money via charges, and pay Judges wages from these earnings.

Is this correct?

If it is not correct, please explain why?

Mr K R McAlpine

Around 15 September 2012 I received the following letter from my Member of Parliament, Katy Clark:

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SW1A OAA

KATY CLARK MP

Kenneth McAlpine

Our Ref: DR/JC/

13 September 2012

Dear Mr McAlpine

Re: Disability discrimination

I enclose a copy of a letter I have received from the Equality and Human Rights Commission regarding your case.

I apologise that the commission were previously not asked to respond to the three questions you had asked me to raise with them. You will note that they have now responded to these questions but I know that their answers and conclusion that they cannot offer any further assistance will be extremely disappointing.

Once you have had the chance to read the response in full you may wish to contact me with your comments.

With best wishes

Yours sincerely

Katy Clark

Member of Parliament

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Katy Clark MP

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

Our Ref. MI-1/N1J/275clark

Your Ref: JC/MCAL01003/02091166

Date: 21 August 2012

Dear Ms Clark

Kenneth McAlpine

Thank you very much for your letter of 26 July addressed to Trevor Phillips who has asked me to reply on his behalf.

I note that there are three questions which Mr McAlpine would now like the Commission to answer. Whilst I will do my best to respond, unfortunately some of the questions asked do not relate to the Commission and cannot be answered by us.

Mr McAlpine first asks

'Why stating that diabetes could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness was not direct disability discrimination in the Employment Tribunal and higher Tribunals and Courts in the UK?"

As you know, Mr McAlpine has pursued his disability discrimination claim through the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Session and the European Court of Human Rights, and was unsuccessful at each stage. The reasons for each court reaching the decision they did in relation to the facts presented by Mr McAlpine will have been provided to him by those courts. The Commission is not in a position to provide any further information on why the courts and tribunals reached the decisions they did.

Mr McAlpine's second question is

"What factual evidence is held which allows the UK to state that 240 million people with diabetes could have prolonged periods of time off due to illness?"

It is unclear to me where or when such a statement has been made by the UK". Nor am I able to say what the basis for the statement would be. as it was not a statement made by the Commission.

Mr McAlpine's third question is-

"Do you see this as being a public interest matter for the 240 million people who have diabetes?"

As mentioned in our last letter to you of 2 March. the appeal case now being pursued by Mr McAlpine deals with procedural improprieties in relation to his original claim. Whilst I appreciate that Mr McAlpine may feel that his appeal involves a matter of public interest, I am afraid that the Commission does not agree. In our view, the appeal does not test discrimination law nor will its outcome have a wider impact in relation to those with diabetes. His original claim of discrimination has been dismissed at all tribunal and court levels. As previously advised therefore, Mr McAlpine's case does not meet our Public Benefit Test.

I am afraid that there is little more that I can add. Whilst I am sure that Mr McAlpine is disappointed that we cannot help him further, I hope that you will understand that, with diminishing resources, we must focus on providing assistance where we believe it will have most impact

Yours sincerely

Mark Hammond

Chief Executive

Around 14 October 2012 I received the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Decision:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

PALAIS DES NATIONS

1211 GENEVA 10,

SWITZERLAND

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR (1)

CE/NO/j1 6/2011

12 October 2012

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

I have the honour to transmit to you herewith, the (advance unedited) text of the Decision, adopted by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 28 September 2012, concerning communication No. 6/2011 submitted to the Committee for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Committee decided that the communication is inadmissible. In accordance with established practice, the text of the Committee's decision will be made public.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

United Nations

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Distr.: General

12 October 2012

Original: English

Advance unedited

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Communication No. 6/2011

Decision adopted by the Committee at its 8th session, 17 to 28 September 2012

Submitted by: Kenneth McAlpine (not represented by counsel)

Alleged victim: The author

State Party: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Date of communication: 25 May 2011 (initial submission)

Document references: Special Rapporteur's rule 70 decision, transmitted to the State party on 21 December 2011 (not issued in document form)

Date of adoption of the decision: 28 September 2012

Subject matter:

Redundancy procedure of the author as an employee with Diabetes Mellitus (type 1 diabetes)

Procedural issues:

The facts occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party; issues have been examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement; the complaint is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated

Substantive issues:

General principles under the Convention; Equality and non-discrimination; Awareness-raising; Equal recognition before the law; Respect for privacy; Work and employment

Articles of the Convention:

4, paragraphs 1(d) and (e); 5, paragraph 2; 8, paragraph 1(b); 12, paragraph 4; 22, paragraph 1 and 27, paragraph 1(a)

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2 (c), (e) and (1)

Annex

Decision of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (eighth session)

concerning

Communication No. 6/2011

The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the present communication: Mr. Mohammed Al-Tarawneh; Mr. Monsur Ahmed Chowdhury; Ms. Maria Soledad Cisternas Reyes; Ms. Theresia Degener; Mr. Gabor Gombos; Mr. Hyung Shik Kim; Mr. Lofti Ben Lallahom; Mr. Stig Langvad; Ms. Edah Wangechi Maina; Mr. Ronald McCallum; Ms. Ana Pelaez Narvaez; Ms. Silvia Judith Quan-Chang; Mr. Carlos Rios Espinosa; Mr. Damjan Tatic; Ms. Jia Yang.

Submitted by: Kenneth McAlpine (not represented by counsel)

Alleged victim: The author

State Party: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Date of communication: 25 May 2011 (initial submission)

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, established under article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

Meeting on 28 September 2012,

Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 6/2011, submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by Kenneth McAlpine under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication, and the State party,

Adopts the following:

Decision under article 2, of the Optional Protocol

1.1 The communication is submitted by Kenneth R. McAlpine, a British national born on 12 August 1964. He claims to be a victim of violations of his rights under article 4, paragraphs 1(d) and (e); article 5, paragraph 2; article 8, paragraph 1(b); article 12, paragraph 4; article 22, paragraph 1; and article 27, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Convention). The author is not represented by counsel. The Convention and the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 7 July 2009, pursuant to article 45, paragraph 2, of the Convention and 6 September 2009, pursuant to article 13, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, respectively.

1.2 On 8 March 2012, the Special Rapporteur on New Communications acting on behalf of the Committee decided in accordance with rule 70, paragraph 8, of the Committee's rules of procedure that the admissibility should be examined separately from the merits.

Factual background

2.1 The author was diagnosed as having Diabetes Mellitus (type 1 diabetes) in February 1966 (at the age of one and a half years), which has been controlled by daily injections of insulin. He holds a Bachelor degree in Production Engineering and Management and a Master's degree of Science in Business Information Systems.

2.2 On 12 August 1998, the author started working at Oracle Corporation UK Limited (hereinafter Oracle) as a consultant. In July 2004, by request of the author, he was transferred to the "On Demand Service Delivery team" (oSDM) as a "Service Delivery Manager" (SDM). He was the seventh longest serving team member out of fourteen. He was in charge of one client account, which involved incident management, attending monthly meetings and preparation of a monthly report. By November 2005, due to the decrease in incidents of the first client account, the author's tasks also involved incident management of a second client account. On 16 December 2005, the author's line manager, Mr. P.S. after having been notified that the author was planning not to attend the monthly meeting of 21 December 2005, had a conference call with the author. After a discussion, in which the author mentioned that he was not happy with his workload, it was agreed that he would no longer deal with incident management of the first client account, but concentrate on the monthly report and monthly meetings of that account and the remainder of his time would be dedicated to incident management of a second client account. In this conversation, Mr. P.S. learned for the first time that the author was diabetic and that he was feeling stressed since November 2005 when the second client account was added to his workload. In a conversation with his second line manager, Mr. N.C. on 21 December 2005, the author had noted that he did not wish to take on a full SDM role, as he was home based and wanted to minimize travel and wished to look for another role within the company.

2.3 In January 2006, Oracle announced that it would merge with another firm, involving a reorganization of its structure. As part of this process, the firm established the Oracle Global On Demand Service Desk and Customer Incident Managers (CIMs), which impacted on the role of the author, as the incident management was to be centralised and the only function remaining for the author was the production of the monthly report and attendance of monthly meetings of the first client account. On 30 May 2006, the author was informed by a Director that he had been provisionally selected for redundancy, because his role was no longer required due to the changing business model and he was not appropriate for a customer facing Service Delivery Manager role. Before the reorganization, the author did not have customer contact, as he mainly dealt with incident management and reporting. After the reorganization, the incident management function was centralised at the Global Service Desk and Service Delivery Managers did not do any incident management anymore. The author acknowledged in the proceedings before the Employment Tribunal that, despite the advertisements of posts of new SDMs, he had not applied. The Tribunal noted that it was not disputed that between January to June 2006, the author looked for alternative roles, of a technical nature within the company. On 10 July 2006, the author was made redundant (dismissed from his post).

2.4 On 25 August 2006, the author lodged a complaint to the Employment Tribunal Service, claiming that Oracle failed to follow the appropriate dismissal and redundancy procedures. He further claimed that Oracle's decision was discriminatory and contrary to section 3A(1) and 3A(5) of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA 1995). He held that he was selected for redundancy because of his disability and/or because he had requested a reduction in his workload due to his disability, and that Oracle failed to make reasonable adjustments that would enable him to stay in the firm, carrying out his tasks in an adequate manner. During the court proceedings, Oracle disclosed electronic messages sent by one of its managers, Mr. P.S. stating that "the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure could result in a prolonged period of time off due illness", and suggesting in one of them "[t]o action redundancy from his role". The Tribunal concluded that, at this stage due to the highly confidential nature of the redundancy list, the author's line manager, Mr. P.S., who made this statement, was not aware that the author's name had been added to a list of candidates for possible redundancy. The author notes that Oracle had acknowledged in the court proceedings that he had taken only two days of sick leave over the period of July 2004 to April 2006. The Tribunal noted that the line manager, Mr. P.S., who made the statement about the author's possible absence for illness acknowledged during the proceedings that this had been a mistake, as the author, in fact, had very little sickness absence. The author submitted that he was the only person fired from the oSDM team, although he had the same job title and tasks as his colleagues and new personnel were hired afterwards. According to the findings by the Employment Tribunal, the author did not dispute that there were many aspects of the oSDM role that he did not carry out and that according to the evidence, it was confirmed that the author, whilst having the job title of oSDM, in fact carried out limited aspects of that role. Oracle noted that the decision to put the author's name in the list of candidates for possible redundancy (RIF list) was made in February 2006 due to the reorganisation and that the person in charge of it, Mr. M.T. was not aware of the author's disability.

2.5 On 13 March 2007, the Employment Tribunal set out that the author had not complied with section 32 of the Employment Act 2002 in respect of raising a grievance regarding the complaint of an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments; therefore, this part of his claim was struck out. The author lodged an appeal against this decision.

2.6 In July and August 2007, both the claim for unfair redundancy and the claim for disability discrimination were dismissed. The Tribunal took note that the author performed a limited role as oSDM, which significantly diminished after Oracle was reorganized, and declared that the author's role was redundant. As to the claims of discrimination, the Tribunal relied on the fact that the electronic messages which referred to the author's diabetes did not lead to the selection for redundancy, that the RIF list was prepared before them, and that the person who elaborated the list did not know about the author's disability. The Tribunal rejected the author's argument in this regard, pointing out that one other oSDM also had type 1 diabetes, but continued in her role. In order to determine direct discrimination, the Tribunal further held that "the correct comparator in cases of direct discrimination is a person who does not have that particular disability, but whose circumstances are not materially different from those of the person with disabilities." Finally, as to the claim that the author had been treated less favourably for a reason which is related to his disability, the Tribunal noted that there should be a causal link between the employee's disability and the treatment complained of, and sustained that the author was moved to the oSDM and got different task adjustments, including reduction of workload, on his own request. Therefore, he could not argue that he was receiving less favourable treatment.

2.7 On 24 October 2007, the author appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, arguing that there was no evidence about the reasons why his name was put in the RIF list, that Oracle's managers' electronic messages proved that he was subject to redundancy because of his diabetes, that Oracle's effort at consultation was not genuine, and that its evidence was intentionally prepared or manipulated. The Employment Appeals Tribunal noted that it only had jurisdiction to hear appeals on questions of law and could not "[r]e-hear the facts of a case or to review an Employment Tribunal's decision on those facts". The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the author's application on 19 December 2007, holding that his appeal did not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing an appeal. Subsequently, the author filed an application for leave to appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision, at the Court of Session, pursuant to section 37 of the Employment Tribunal Act 1996. On 12 February 2010, the Court refused all grounds of appeal, and held that grounds, such as the assessment of the evidence were matter for the Employment Tribunal and no error in law was identified. At the Employment Tribunal and Court of Session, costs of £3,700.00 and £6,968.25, respectively, were awarded against the author.

2.8 On 12 August 2008, the author lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) claiming violations of his rights to a fair hearing and discrimination in conjunction with other rights. On 29 March 2011, the Court sitting in a single judge formation declared it inadmissible because it "[d]id not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or its Protocols."

The Complaint

3.1 The author alleges that the State party failed to safeguard and to promote the rights enshrined in article 4, paragraphs 1(d) and (e); article 5, paragraph 2; article 8, paragraph 1(b); article 12, paragraph 4; article 22, paragraph 1; and article 27, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention due to the lack of application of its own legislation, which, in the author's opinion, happened because of the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness. Furthermore, he points out that the State party's tribunals and courts failed to adequately assess the evidence about discrimination brought before them, and relied on invented and/or manipulated evidence provided by Oracle.

3.2 With regard to the alleged violation of article 4, paragraphs 1(d) and (e), the author claims that the State party has not taken any measures to ensure that its authorities acknowledge disability discrimination based on diabetes. It also has not taken any measures to eliminate discrimination by private enterprises, such as Oracle.

3.3 The author further claims that the State party has not prohibited discrimination on the basis of disability pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention when it held that the stereotypical assumption that disability equalled sickness and future absence did not constitute discrimination.

3.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 8, paragraph 1 (b), the author claims that despite having laws protecting against discrimination of persons with disabilities, the State party has not adopted any immediate, effective and appropriate measures to combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices by employers, the legal system and judges who stereotypically assume that all diabetics have prolonged periods of time off due to their illness.

3.5 With respect to the alleged violation of article 12, paragraph 4, the author claims that he did not have a fair hearing, as the evidence on which the Tribunals relied was tampered with by his former employer. He claims that electronic messages placing the author on the RIF list are not chronological, as the first electronic message is dated 2 February 2006, the second one 23 March 2006, the third one 21 February 2006 and the fourth 4 February 2006, and that his name was added to the list in handwriting when the other names were printed.

3.6 The author notes that he has been a victim of an arbitrary and unlawful interference in his privacy and family. On 8 September 2010, during his absence, a court officer proceeded to enquire about his whereabouts and his work with neighbours. On 14 September 2010, two officers of the court inquired about the value of the author's house and car without being able to tell the author the exact amount of the court costs to be recovered. The author notes that he had appealed against the cost and that the attempt of the recovery of the costs by the court officer was done to put pressure on him to drop future appeals. He also claims that the statement of the Employment Tribunal labelling him "not to be a credible witness" was an attack to his honour and reputation in breach of article 22 of the Convention.

3.7 With regard to the violation of article 27, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention, the author claims that he was a victim of a stereotypical assumption that due to his diabetes, he would take prolonged time off due to his illness and this was not based on facts, since he had only taken two days of sick leave in the two years prior to his redundancy. He claims that he was being discriminated against because of his disability, as he was not working or being employed, on an equal basis with others.

State party's observations on the admissibility

4.1 The State party submits that it considers the communication to be inadmissible as the facts occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, the author's claims have been examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement and the complaint is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated.

4.2 The State party submits that the Optional Protocol came into force on 6 September 2009 and that the central incident of the author's redundancy took place on 10 July 2006. All judicial hearings, which examined the fact of the author's redundancy, took place before entry into force of the Optional Protocol. It claims that the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol.

4.3 The State party further submits that the author submitted his complaint to the ECHR which found his application inadmissible as "it did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols". The State party argues that the Court has examined the substance of the author's application and therefore the communication should be regarded as inadmissible pursuant to article 2, paragraph (c), of the Optional Protocol.

4.4 Lastly, the State party argues that other human rights treaty bodies have held that it is not for the Committee to replace domestic authorities in the assessment of the facts. The present communication is based upon the same facts as presented to challenge the redundancy decision before the domestic courts. The domestic court considered the facts and rejected the author's claims. The author has not explained in which way the national authorities would have breached the Convention when treating his challenge to his redundancy. The State party maintains that the author accepts that it has legislation prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination and less favourable treatment on the ground of disability at the workplace (DDA 1995). It submits that the author's challenge of the decision of the Employment Tribunal is in effect requesting the Committee to overrule the domestic tribunal's findings of fact, without providing any evidence to support his allegation that the State party's legal system acted in such a way as to condone the alleged discrimination. It therefore finds that the communication is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated according to article 2, paragraph (e), of the Optional Protocol.

The author's comments on the State party's observations

5.1 On 4 March 2012, the author submits his comments on the State party's observations and notes that the date of the last Court judgment regarding the facts of his case is 12 February 2010. This proves that the facts continued after the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol, and are continuing to present.

5.2 With regard to the author's application to the ECHR, he argues that it concerned a part of his case struck out by the Employment Tribunal regarding reasonable adjustments. He also lodged a further application concerning alleged breaches of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning his rights to a fair hearing and discrimination in conjunction with other articles. A further application was also lodged in December 2010 concerning awards of expenses made against him. On 29 March 2011, the ECHR informed him that his application, including all further joined applications, had been declared inadmissible by a single judge. He argues that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides much broader protections to persons with disabilities than the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which does not even mention disability. He also states that in the ECHR letter dated 29 March 2011, it is stated that "The present communication is made pursuant to Rule 52A of the Rules of the Court, which holds that a procedural decision can be taken without further examination." The author's complaint was therefore dismissed on procedural grounds, and was not substantively examined.

5.3 With regard to the State party's argument that the author's complaint is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated, the author states that he is not asking the. Committee to replace the domestic authorities in the assessment of the facts, but the Committee is being asked to decide whether the State party is in violation of the Convention, based on articles contained in the Convention, and the merits and evidence to allege and prove a violation of the relevant articles of the Convention. He claims that his petition contains sufficiently developed merits, facts and arguments of the alleged violations of the Convention. He notes that the judgments are sufficient evidence that the State party's authorities have, on numerous occasions, stated that the affirmation that diabetes could result in future sickness absence is not discriminatory.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities must, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

6.2 The Committee notes the State party's argument that the central incident of the author's redundancy took place on 10 July 2006 and that all judicial hearings examining the facts of the author's redundancy took place before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol on 6 September 2009. It also notes the author's claim that the last court decision regarding the facts of his case is dated 12 February 2010 and that therefore the facts continued after the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party.

6.3 With regard to the admissibility criteria ratione temporis under article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee observes that the Convention and the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 7 July 2009, pursuant to article 45, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and 6 September 2009, pursuant to article 13, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, respectively. The Committee notes that the author was made redundant on 10 July 2006 and that he lodged a complaint to the Employment Tribunal on 25 August 2006, which dismissed his complaint in July and August 2007. On 24 October 2007, the author appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed his application on 19 December 2007. On 12 February 2010, the Court of Session refused the author's application for leave to appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision.

6.4 The Committee considers that, in accordance with article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol, it may not examine alleged violations of the Convention which occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, in the present case on 6 September 2009, unless the facts continued after this date.

6.5 The Committee observes that the author's claim that his dismissal from his post as "Service Delivery Manager" was based on the assumption that his disability could lead to his taking sick leave and was therefore discriminatory was examined by the State party's judicial authorities on the merits, notably in oral hearings. However, both the author's dismissal and the judicial review took place before the entry into force of the Convention and the Optional Protocol for the State party. Moreover, on 12 February 2010, after both instruments had entered into force, the Court of Session refused the author leave to lodge a new appeal, holding that - as the author himself put it in his submission - "the assessment of the evidence [was a] matter for the Employment Tribunal and no error in law was identified". The Committee considers that this decision, by its very nature, did not in itself constitute an act that reiterated the content of the judgements of the lower courts in their rulings on the question of discrimination raised by the author, and that, consequently, the decision did not violate the author's rights under the Convention. The Committee therefore concludes that the alleged violations took place before the entry into force for the State party of the Convention and the Optional Protocol, which cannot be applied retroactively, and consequently that, in accordance with article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol, it is precluded ratione temporis from examining the present communication.

6.6 As the Committee has decided to declare the communication inadmissible in application of the ratione temporis principle, it will not rule on its admissibility under article 2, paragraphs (c) and (e), of the Optional Protocol in respect of any of the rights invoked by the author.

7. The Committee therefore decides:

(a) That the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis under article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol;

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author.

[Adopted in Arabic, Chinese, English, French and Spanish the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Russian as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]

On 22 October 2012 I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Communication Number: 6/2011

Decision Reference: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Please treat the following matter as urgent:

Mr K.R. McAlpine

24 January 2012

Communication Number: 6/2011

OHCHR

Petitions Team

Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Unedited Decision adopted by the Committee at its 8th session.

I am sorry, but I simply cannot give my agreement to this unedited decision for the following reasons:

In your unedited decision you stated:

6.5 The Committee observes that the author's claim that his dismissal from his post as "Service Delivery Manager" was based on the assumption that his disability could lead to his taking sick leave and was therefore discriminatory was examined by the State party's judicial authorities on the merits, notably in oral hearings. However, both the author's dismissal and the judicial review took place before the entry into force of the Convention and the Optional Protocol for the State party. Moreover, on 12 February 2010, after both instruments had entered into force, the Court of Session refused the author leave to lodge a new appeal, holding that — as the author himself put it in his submission — "the assessment of the evidence [was a] matter for the Employment Tribunal and no error in law was identified". The Committee considers that this decision, by its very nature, did not in itself constitute an act that reiterated the content of the judgements of the lower courts in their rulings on the question of discrimination raised by the author, and that, consequently, the decision did not violate the author's rights under the Convention. The Committee therefore concludes that the alleged violations took place before the entry into force for the State party of the Convention and the Optional Protocol, which cannot be applied retroactively, and consequently that, in accordance with article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol, it is precluded ratione temporis from examining the present communication.

It was NOT sick leave, please replace this with the correct quotation of "diabetes which could result in prolonged period of time off due to illness".

This was NOT my submission "holding that - as the author himself put it in his submission - "the assessment of the evidence [was a] matter for the Employment Tribunal and no error in law was identified". This is totally and utterly wrong. This sentence was part of the judgement of the Court of Session on 12 February 2010, after three hearings in front of Judges Lord Osborne, Lord Clarke and Lady Dorrian.

The Judgement of the Court of Session can be reviewed here:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSIH11.html

It clearly states at the top of this "OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LADY DORRIAN"

Because it is the judgement of the three Judges in the Court of Session on 12 February 2010 that is stating "the assessment of the evidence [was a] matter for the Employment Tribunal and no error in law was identified", your decision is fundamentally wrong, because it was a judgement by Judges in the Court of Session that came to this conclusion, not me, and therefore a UK Court decision has been made after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol.

Because the Committee has got the facts of this case so fundamentally wrong, a new decision has to be made by the Committee.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The next day I sent another email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

As discussed on the phone earlier today, please find attached the document discussed earlier which has to be sent to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to review their decision (CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011) as this decision is based on factually incorrect information, resulting in a manifestly unfounded and completely wrong decision.

Can you provide a timescale as to when the Committee will review this decision?

Thanks,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Attached document read:

Mr K.R. McAlpine

23 October 2012

Communication Number: 6/2011

Your Reference: G/SO 214/48 GBR(1)

Advance Unedited Decision: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

OHCHR

Petitions Team

Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

In your cover letter you state:

"submitted to the Committee for consideration under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

My decision should have been submitted to the Committee for consideration under the optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

In the unedited decision (CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011), paragraph 6.5 is factually incorrect, manifestly unfounded and completely wrong, and the whole decision will turn on the correct interpretation.

Paragraph 6.5, based on facts, should correctly read:

6.5 The Committee observes that the author's claim that his dismissal from his post as "Service Delivery Manager" was based on the assumption that his disability "could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness" [1] and was therefore discriminatory was examined by the State party's judicial authorities on the merits, notably in oral hearings. However, both the author's dismissal and the first judicial review took place before the entry into force of the Convention and the Optional Protocol for the State party. Moreover, on 12 February 2010, after both instruments had entered into force, the Court of Session refused the author "LEAVE TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL" [2], holding that "the assessment of the evidence was a matter for the Employment Tribunal and no error in law was identified" [3]......

1] Philip Snowden email 12 April 2006 at 17:50, [ Page 19 of evidence.

2] Court of Session Judgement 12 February 2010, [ Page 87 of evidence.

[3] Court of Session Judgement 12 February 2010, Paragraph 11, Page 92 of evidence.

However, paragraph 6.5 is still factually incorrect, manifestly unfounded and completely wrong, as it quotes paragraph 11 of the Court of Session Judgement which is the Judges deciding whether or not Kenneth McAlpine was a Service Delivery Manager.

The paragraph where the Judges decide on discrimination is paragraph 10 that states:

"As to the remaining conclusions, the argument for the appellant was largely to the effect that the Tribunal should not have interpreted certain e-mails and the evidence which the Tribunal heard about them in the way that they did. However the interpretation of the evidence before them was a matter for the tribunal. The conclusions which they reached were conclusions which were reasonably open to them on the evidence before them and no error in law has been identified."

Court of Session Judgement 12 February 2010, Paragraph 10, Page 91 of evidence.

This is the decision of the Court of Session on the earlier decisions made by the Tribunal regarding the discriminatory emails. There can be no other interpretation of these quoted sentences, and as such it is a continuing UK Court decision of the facts made after the entry in to force of the CRPD optional protocol.

Paragraph 6.5 of the unedited version should now read:

6.5 The Committee observes that the author's claim that his dismissal from his post as "Service Delivery Manager" was based on the assumption that his disability "could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness" and was therefore discriminatory was examined by the State party's judicial authorities on the merits, notably in oral hearings. However, both the author's dismissal and the first judicial review took place before the entry into force of the Convention and the Optional Protocol for the State party. Moreover, on 12 February 2010, after both instruments had entered into force, the Court of Session refused the author "LEAVE TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL". The Committee considers that this decision, by its very nature, constituted an act that reiterated the content of the judgements of the lower courts in their rulings on the question of discrimination raised by the author, and that, consequently, the decision violated the author's rights under the Convention. The Committee therefore concludes that the alleged violations took place before, during and after the entry into force for the State party of the Convention and the Optional Protocol, and consequently that, in accordance with article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol, it is admissible ratione temporis and the Committee can examine the present communication.

To back up this rewording of paragraph 6.5, please refer to the following:

In the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 2(f) states that communications will be declared inadmissible when:

(f) The facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State Party concerned unless those facts continued after that date.

The facts of this case continued to the Court of Session judgement on 12 February 2010, and still continue to this day, as nothing has been overturned.

On the web page: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/individual.htm

It states:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Treaty Bodies - Individual Communications

23 FAQ about Treaty Body complaints procedures

Additional pointers on the admissibility of your case

"Alternatively, it is usually a sufficient ground for the Committee to examine the whole complaint if, after the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol, there has been a court decision or some other State act relating to an event preceding that date."

Some petitions that have been accepted ratione temporis when the facts have happened before the entry in to force of the optional protocol, but where Court decisions have happened after the entry in to force of the optional protocol, thereby allowing admissibility are:

Alexandros Kouidis v. Greece,1070/2002, Paragraph 6.5

http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/CCPRcase.nsf/3167fd85523cbf75c12567c8004d4280/627c1b285ebeac99c12571a700430320?OpenDocument

Aurel and Lucia Blaga v. Romania, 1158/2003, Paragraph 6.4

http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/CCPRcase.nsf/3167fd85523cbf75c12567c8004d4280/cb44853fdc1802c2c12571aa00401b3f?OpenDocument

As the Committee has made its decision on factually incorrect information, resulting in manifestly unfounded and completely wrong decisions, Mr McAlpine requests that the Committee overturns this decision, and finds the communication admissible ratione temporis pursuant to article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

Later that morning I sent an email to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

Sorry to ask for your help again.

I have attached an unedited version of the UN CRPD Decision.

This unedited version of the decision has got the reason for inadmissibility completely wrong. In paragraph 6.5 it states:

"Moreover, on 12 February 2010, after both instruments had entered into force, the Court of Session refused the author leave to lodge a new appeal, holding that - as the author himself put it in his submission - "the assessment of the evidence [was a] matter for the Employment Tribunal and no error in law was identified".

This is completely wrong, this was not my submission to the Court, this was the Judgement of the Court. Because it was the Judgement of the Court, made on 12 February 2010, this post dates the entry into force of the CRPD optional protocol, and would therefore not be inadmissible ratione temporis, as there was a UK Court Judgement (continuing decision) made after the entry into force of the CRPD optional protocol.

This Court Judgement is freely available on the internet, and clearly states that it is the opinion of the Judges:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSIH11.html , Paragraph 11, last sentence.

How do I go about getting the CRPD Committee to review this decision before it gets published, as it is so manifestly wrong?

Thanks and regards,

Kenneth

I then received the following email reply from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Kenneth,

Thanks for your mail and query.

I am sorry to hear that the Committee found your petition inadmissible. Unfortunately, as far as I know the decision by the Committee is final. the "unedited advanced version" simply refers to the fact that language, grammar etc might be changed but not the substance.

I would suggest that you contact the petitions unit directly and raise this issue with them- the fact that you did not state that in your submission but were referring to the decision of the Court of sessions, and that you did not agree with that interpretation.

At the very least, they may be able to edit that part of the decision so that it is factually correct.

If there is any chance for the decision to be revised in terms of substance, I would be quick to bring this to their attention and to submit that the basis of their decision does not hold then, in your opinion.

You may want to call them directly to speed up the process. The decision is not yet posted on their website but as soon as it is I think the chance of amending that decision will be very little.

best regards,

Victoria

I immediately sent the following email reply to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

Thanks for your reply.

I have phoned them and explained the situation. The person who took the call is going to send my reply to the Committee when I send it to Petitions.

I simply cannot believe that the Committee is not accepting my petition, as there is a Court judgement post-dating the entry into force of the optional protocol, and because no-one (UK Courts, UN) has overturned the stereotype that Diabetes could result in future sickness absence, it is still a continuing violation.

What is the point of the UN CRPD if it is not recognising and tackling stereotypes?

My views on the UN have really changed, and I have to make everything publicly available on the internet for other Diabetics to pick up the fight with the UK and UN.

Thanks,

Kenneth

The next morning I received the following email from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Return Receipt

Your document: URGENT: Communication Number: 6/2011

Your Reference: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

was received by:

at: 24/10/2012 10:45:23

Later that same day I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Communication Number: 6/2011

Decision Reference: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Sorry to trouble you again, but I do not agree with the whole of section 2 (paragraphs 2.1 to 2.8 of the decision) of the advanced unedited decision. The Committee has just accepted the Tribunals and Courts "Factual background" as being correct.

All Judgments, including your advanced unedited decision, relies on the story that Oracle Corporation UK Ltd made 121 employees redundant early in 2006 (Evidence, Page 46,  Paragraph 49 and  Paragraph 154). They did not, because there is no prove of this whatsoever. I thought someone from the UN may have checked this out.

In the UK, when a Company has to make more than 20 employees redundant, there is a statutory requirement to complete an HR1 Form (http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/pdfs/rpforms/hr1.pdf). The Insolvency Service, part of the UK Government, did NOT receive any HR1 Form from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in 2006, as shown in the  email listed below this email from Dave Rowan.

If Oracle Corporation UK Ltd did not make 121 employees redundant in 2006, then their whole story is untrue about Mr McAlpine being made redundant due to a collective redundancy, and only leaves disability discrimination as the real reason.

I think you should check this out for yourself before you state in your decision that Mr McAlpine was genuinely dismissed for the reason of redundancy, when there was no statutory evidence of such a redundancy.

Regards,

Kenneth McAlpine

Chapter 7

Around 14 November 2012 I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

PALAIS DES NATIONS

1211 GENEVA 10,

SWITZERLAND

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR (1)

CE/NO/j1 6/2011

12 November 2012

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of 22, 23 and 24 October 2012 with regard to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities decision pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Your concerns have been shared with the Committee and we wish to inform you of the following:

Kindly note that the Committee's decisions are final and cannot be reviewed with the exception of decisions, in which the Committee declares a communication inadmissible pursuant to article 2, paragraph d, of the Optional Protocol for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see rule 71, paragraph 2, of the Committee's rules of procedure).

Kindly be reassured that the Committee carefully considered all the information made available to it by you and the State party. During its 8th session, it discussed thoroughly the concept of inadmissibility ratione temporis and whether or not it applied to your specific case. Kindly also be informed that the Committee considered the jurisprudence of other UN human rights treaty bodies regarding the question of admissibility ratione temporis, such as the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on the Elimination of All Discrimination against Women.

Please be informed that the Committee agreed to make two editorial changes in paragraph 6.5. The edited version of the Committee's decision pursuant to article 2, of the Optional Protocol is attached for your reference.

While we understand your disappointment, kindly note that no further correspondence can be exchanged on the matter and that the Committee will not re-open your case.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Communication No. 6/2011

Decision adopted by the Committee at its eighth session, 17 to 28 September 2012

Submitted by: Kenneth McAlpine (not represented by counsel)

Alleged victim: The author

State party: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Date of communication: 25 May 2011 (initial submission)

Document references: Special Rapporteur's rule 70 decision, transmitted to the State party on 21 December 2011 (not issued in document form)

Date of adoption of the decision: 28 September 2012

Subject matter: Redundancy procedure of the author as an employee with diabetes mellitus (type 1 diabetes)

Procedural issues: The facts occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party; issues have been examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement; the complaint is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated

Substantive issues: General principles under the Convention; equality and non-discrimination; awareness-raising; equal recognition before the law; respect for privacy; work and employment

Articles of the Convention: 4, paragraph 1 (d) and (e); 5, paragraph 2; 8, paragraph 1 (b); 12, paragraph 4; 22, paragraph 1; and 27, paragraph 1 (a)

Article of the Optional Protocol: 2 (c), (e) and (f)

Annex

Decision of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities under article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (eighth session)

concerning

Communication No. 6/2011'

Submitted by: Kenneth McAlpine (not represented by counsel)

Alleged victim: The author

State party: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Date of communication: 25 May 2011 (initial submission)

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, established under article 34 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

Meeting on 28 September 2012,

Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 6/2011, submitted to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by Kenneth McAlpine under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication and the State party,

Adopts the following:

Decision under article 2 of the Optional Protocol

1.1 The communication is submitted by Kenneth R. McAlpine, a British national born on 12 August 1964. He claims to be a victim of violations of his rights under article 4, paragraph 1 (d) and (e); article 5, paragraph 2; article 8, paragraph 1 (b); article 12, paragraph 4; article 22, paragraph 1; and article 27, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Convention). The author is not represented by counsel. The Convention and the Optional Protocol thereto entered into force for the State party on 7 July 2009, pursuant to article 45, paragraph 2, of the Convention and 6 September 2009, pursuant to article 13, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, respectively.

1.2 On 8 March 2012, the Special Rapporteur on communications under the Optional Protocol, acting on behalf of the Committee, decided in accordance with rule 70, paragraph 8, of the Committee's rules of procedure that the admissibility should be examined separately from the merits.

Factual background

2.1 The author was diagnosed as having diabetes mellitus (type 1 diabetes) in February 1966 (at the age of one and a half years), which has been controlled by daily injections of insulin. He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Production Engineering and Management and a Master of Science Degree in Business Information Systems.

2.2 On 12 August 1998, the author started working at Oracle Corporation UK Limited (hereinafter Oracle) as a consultant. In July 2004, by request of the author, he was transferred to the On Demand Service Delivery team as a Service Delivery Manager (SDM). He was the seventh longest serving team member out of 14. He was in charge of one client account, which involved incident management, attending monthly meetings and preparation of a monthly report. By November 2005, due to the decrease in incidents of the first client account, the author's tasks also involved incident management for a second client account. On 16 December 2005, the author's line manager, Mr. P.S., after having been notified that the author was planning not to attend the monthly meeting of 21 December 2005, had a conference call with the author. After a discussion in which the author mentioned that he was not happy with his workload, it was agreed that he would no longer deal with incident management for the first client account, but would concentrate on the monthly report and monthly meetings of that account, and the remainder of his time would be dedicated to incident management for a second client account. In this conversation, Mr. P.S. learned for the first time that the author was diabetic and that he had been feeling stressed since November 2005 when the second client account was added to his workload. In a conversation with his second line manager, Mr. N.C., on 21 December 2005, the author had noted that he did not wish to take on a full SDM role, as he was home-based and wanted to minimize travel and wished to look for another role within the company.

2.3 In January 2006, Oracle announced that it would merge with another firm, involving a reorganization of its structure. As part of this process, the firm established the Oracle Global On Demand Service Desk and Customer Incident Managers (CIMs), which affected the role of the author, as the incident management was to be centralized and the only function remaining for the author was the production of the monthly report and attendance at monthly meetings for the first client account. On 30 May 2006, the author was informed by a Director that he had been provisionally selected for redundancy, because his role was no longer required due to the changing business model and he was not appropriate for a customer-facing Service Delivery Manager role. Before the reorganization, the author did not have customer contact, as he dealt mainly with incident management and reporting. After the reorganization, the incident management function was centralized at the Global Service Desk and Service Delivery Managers no longer did any incident management. The author acknowledged in the proceedings before the Employment Tribunal that, despite the advertisements of posts of new SDMs, he had not applied.' The Employment Tribunal noted that it was not disputed that between January to June 2006, the author looked for alternative roles of a technical nature within the company.' On 10 July 2006, the author was made redundant (dismissed from his post).

2.4 On 25 August 2006, the author lodged a complaint with the Employment Tribunal Service, claiming that Oracle failed to follow the appropriate dismissal and redundancy procedures. He further claimed that Oracle's decision was discriminatory and contrary to section 3A(1) and 3A(5) of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act. He held that he was selected for redundancy because of his disability and/or because he had requested a reduction in his workload due to his disability, and that Oracle failed to make reasonable adjustments that would enable him to stay in the firm, carrying out his tasks in an adequate manner. During the court proceedings, Oracle disclosed electronic messages sent by one of its managers, Mr. P.S., stating that "the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness", and suggesting in one of them "to action redundancy from his role". The Tribunal concluded that, at that stage, due to the highly confidential nature of the redundancy list, the author's line manager, Mr. P.S., who made the statement, was not aware that the author's name had been added to a list of candidates for possible redundancy. The author notes that Oracle had acknowledged in the court proceedings that he had taken only two days of sick leave over the period of July 2004 to April 2006. The Tribunal noted that the line manager, Mr. P.S., who made the statement about the author's possible absence for illness, acknowledged during the proceedings that this had been a mistake, as the author, in fact, had very little illness-related absence. The author submitted that he was the only person fired from the SDM team, although he had the same job title and tasks as his colleagues and new personnel were hired afterwards. According to the fmdings by the Employment Tribunal, the author did not dispute that there were many aspects of the SDM role that he did not carry out and that according to the evidence, it was confirmed that the author, while having the job title of SDM, in fact carried out limited aspects of that role.4 Oracle noted that the decision to put the author's name in the list of candidates for possible redundancy (RIF list) was made in February 2006 due to the reorganization and that the person in charge of it, Mr. M.T., was not aware of the author's disability.

2.5 On 13 March 2007, the Employment Tribunal set out that the author had not complied with section 32 of the Employment Act 2002 in respect of raising a grievance regarding the complaint of an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments; therefore, this part of his claim was struck out. The author lodged an appeal against this decision.

2.6 In July and August 2007, both the claim for unfair redundancy and the claim for disability discrimination were dismissed. The Employment Tribunal took note that the author performed a limited role as SDM which significantly diminished after Oracle was reorganized, and declared that the author's role was redundant. As to the claims of discrimination, the Tribunal relied on the fact that the electronic messages which referred to the author's diabetes did not lead to the selection for redundancy, that the RIF list was prepared before they were sent, and that the person who prepared the list did not know about the author's disability. The Tribunal rejected the author's argument in this regard, pointing out that one other SDM also had type 1 diabetes, but continued in her role. In order to determine direct discrimination, the Tribunal further held that "the correct comparator in cases of direct discrimination is a person who does not have that particular disability, but whose circumstances are not materially different from those of the person with disabilities". Finally, as to the claim that the author had been treated less favourably for a reason which is related to his disability, the Tribunal noted that there should be a causal link between the employee's disability and the treatment complained of, and sustained that the author was moved to the On Demand Service Delivery team and received different task adjustments, including reduction of workload, at his own request. Therefore, he could not argue that he was receiving less favourable treatment.

2.7 On 24 October 2007, the author appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, arguing that there was no evidence about the reasons why his name was put in the RIF list, that the electronic messages of the Oracle managers proved that he was subject to redundancy because of his diabetes, that Oracle's effort at consultation was not genuine, and that its evidence was intentionally prepared or manipulated. The Employment Appeals Tribunal noted that it had jurisdiction to hear only appeals on questions of law and could not "re-hear the facts of a case or to review an Employment Tribunal's decision on those facts". The Employment Appeals Tribunal dismissed the author's application on 19 December 2007, holding that his appeal did not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing an appeal. Subsequently, the author filed an application for leave to appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision, at the Court of Session, pursuant to section 37 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. On 12 February 2010, the Court refused all grounds of appeal, and held that grounds such as the assessment of the evidence were a matter for the Employment Tribunal and no error in law was identified. At the Employment Tribunal and Court of Session, costs of £3,700.00 and £6,968.25, respectively, were awarded against the author.

2.8 On 12 August 2008, the author lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) claiming violations of his rights to a fair hearing and discrimination in conjunction with other rights. On 29 March 2011, the Court, sitting in a single judge formation, declared it inadmissible because it "did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or its Protocols".

The complaint

3.1 The author alleges that the State party failed to safeguard and promote the rights enshrined in article 4, paragraph 1 (d) and (e); article 5, paragraph 2; article 8, paragraph 1 (b); article 12, paragraph 4; article 22, paragraph 1; and article 27, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention, due to the lack of application of its own legislation, which, in the author's opinion, occurred because of the stereotypical assumption that diabetes will result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness. Furthermore, he points out that the State party's tribunals and courts failed to adequately assess the evidence about discrimination brought before them, and relied on invented and/or manipulated evidence provided by Oracle.

3.2 With regard to the alleged violation of article 4, paragraph 1 (d) and (e), the author claims that the State party has not taken any measures to ensure that its authorities acknowledge disability discrimination based on diabetes. It also has not taken any measures to eliminate discrimination by private enterprises, such as Oracle.

3.3 The author further claims that the State party failed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention when it held that the stereotypical assumption that disability equalled sickness and future absence did not constitute discrimination.

3.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 8, paragraph 1 (b), the author claims that despite having laws protecting against discrimination of persons with disabilities, the State party has not adopted any immediate, effective and appropriate measures to combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices by employers, the legal system and judges who stereotypically assume that all diabetics have prolonged periods of time off due to their illness.

3.5 With respect to the alleged violation of article 12, paragraph 4, the author claims that he did not have a fair hearing, as the evidence on which the tribunals relied was tampered with by his former employer.' He claims that electronic messages placing the author on the R1F list are not chronological, as the first electronic message is dated 2 February 2006, the second one 23 March 2006, the third one 21 February 2006 and the fourth 4 February 2006, and that his name was added to the list in handwriting while the other names were printed.

3.6 The author notes that he has been a victim of an arbitrary and unlawful interference in his privacy and family. On 8 September 2010, during his absence, a court officer proceeded to enquire about his whereabouts and his work with neighbours. On 14 September 2010, two officers of the court inquired about the value of the author's house and car without being able to tell the author the exact amount of the court costs to be recovered.' The author notes that he had appealed against the cost and that the attempt of the recovery of the costs by the court officer was done to put pressure on him to drop future appeals. He also claims that the statement of the Employment Tribunal considering him "not to be a credible witness"' was an attack on his honour and reputation, in breach of article 22 of the Convention.

3.7 With regard to the violation of article 27, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention, the author claims that he was a victim of a stereotypical assumption that, due to his diabetes, he would take prolonged time off due to his illness and that this was not based on facts, since he had taken only two days of sick leave in the two years prior to his redundancy. He claims that he was being discriminated against because of his disability, as he was not working or being employed on an equal basis with others.

State party's observations on the admissibility

4.1 The State party submits that it considers the communication to be inadmissible as the facts occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, the author's claims have been examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement and the complaint is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated.

4.2 The State party submits that the Optional Protocol came into force on 6 September 2009 and that the central incident of the author's redundancy took place on 10 July 2006. All judicial hearings that examined the fact of the author's redundancy took place before entry into force of the Optional Protocol. It claims that the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol.

4.3 The State party further submits that the author submitted his complaint to the ECHR, which found his application inadmissible as "it did not disclose zany appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols". The State party argues that the Court has examined the substance of the author's application and therefore the communication should be regarded as inadmissible pursuant to article 2, paragraph (c), of the Optional Protocol.

4.4 Lastly, the State party argues that other human rights treaty bodies have held that it is not for the Committee to replace domestic authorities in the assessment of the facts.' The present communication is based upon the same facts as presented to challenge the redundancy decision before the domestic courts. The domestic court considered the facts and rejected the author's claims. The author has not explained in which way the national authorities would have breached the Convention when treating his challenge to his redundancy. The State party maintains that the author accepts that it has legislation prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination and less favourable treatment on the ground of disability at the workplace (1995 Disability Discrimination Act). It submits that the author's challenge of the decision of the Employment Tribunal is in effect requesting the Committee to overrule the domestic tribunal's findings of fact, without providing any evidence to support his allegation that the State party's legal system acted in such a way as to condone the alleged discrimination. It therefore finds that the communication is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated according to article 2, paragraph (e), of the Optional Protocol.

The author's comments on the State party's observations

5.1 On 4 March 2012, the author submitted his comments on the State party's observations and noted that the date of the last Court judgment regarding the facts of his case is 12 February 2010. This proves that the facts continued after the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol, and are continuing to present.

5.2 With regard to the author's application to the ECHR, he argues that it concerned a part of his case struck out by the Employment Tribunal regarding reasonable adjustments. He also lodged a further application concerning alleged breaches of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning his rights to a fair hearing and discrimination in conjunction with other articles. A further application was also lodged in December 2010 concerning the awards of expenses made against him. On 29 March 2011, the ECHR informed him that his application, including all further joined applications, had been declared inadmissible by a single judge. He argues that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides much broader protections to persons with disabilities than the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which does not even mention disability. He also notes that in the ECHR letter dated 29 March 2011, it is stated that "the present communication is made pursuant to Rule 52A of the Rules of the Court, which holds that a procedural decision can be taken without further examination".9 The author's complaint was therefore dismissed on procedural grounds, and was not substantively examined.

5.3 With regard to the State party's argument that the author's complaint is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated, the author states that he is not asking the Committee to replace the domestic authorities in the assessment of the facts, but the Committee is being asked to decide whether the State party is in violation of the Convention, based on articles contained in the Convention, and the merits and evidence to allege and prove a violation of the relevant articles of the Convention. He claims that his petition contains sufficiently developed merits, facts and arguments of the alleged violations of the Convention. He notes that the judgments are sufficient evidence that the State party's authorities have, on numerous occasions, stated that the affirmation that diabetes could result in future sickness absence is not discriminatory.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities must, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 65 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

6.2 The Committee notes the State party's argument that the central incident of the author's redundancy took place on 10 July 2006 and that all judicial hearings examining the facts of the author's redundancy took place before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol on 6 September 2009. It also notes the author's claim that the last court decision regarding the facts of his case is dated 12 February 2010 and that therefore the facts continued after the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party.

6.3 With regard to the admissibility criteria ratione temporis under article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee observes that the Convention and the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 7 July 2009, pursuant to article 45, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and 6 September 2009, pursuant to article 13, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, respectively. The Committee notes that the author was made redundant on 10 July 2006 and that he lodged a complaint to the Employment Tribunal on 25 August 2006, which dismissed his complaint in July and August 2007. On 24 October 2007, the author appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which dismissed his application on 19 December 2007. On 12 February 2010, the Court of Session refused the author's application for leave to appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision.

6.4 The Committee considers that, in accordance with article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol, it may not examine alleged violations of the Convention that occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, in the present case on 6 September 2009, unless the facts continued after that date.

6.5 The Committee observes that the author's claim that his dismissal from his post as Service Delivery Manager was based on the assumption that his disability could result in prolonged periods of time off due to illness and was therefore discriminatory was examined by the State party's judicial authorities on the merits, notably in oral hearings. However, both the author's dismissal and the judicial review took place before the entry into force of the Convention and the Optional Protocol for the State party. Moreover, on 12 February 2010, after both instruments had entered into force, the Court of Session refused the author leave to lodge a new appeal, holding that"the assessment of the evidence [was a] matter for the Employment Tribunal and no error in law was identified". The Committee considers that this decision, by its very nature, did not in itself constitute an act that reiterated the content of the judgements of the lower courts in their rulings on the question of discrimination raised by the author, and that, consequently, the decision did not violate the author's rights under the Convention. The Committee therefore concludes that the alleged violations took place before the entry into force for the State party of the Convention and the Optional Protocol, which cannot be applied retroactively, and consequently that, in accordance with article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol, it is precluded ratione temporis from examining the present communication.

6.6 As the Committee has decided to declare the communication inadmissible in application of the ratione temporis principle, it will not rule on its admissibility under article 2, paragraphs (c) and (e), of the Optional Protocol in respect of any of the rights invoked by the author.

7. The Committee therefore decides:

(a) That the communication is inadmissible ratione temporis under article 2, paragraph (1), of the Optional Protocol;

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author.

[Adopted in Arabic, Chinese, English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Russian as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]

On 13 December 2012 I sent the following email to the Web Manager at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your webpage:

http://www.ohcr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/Jurisprudence.aspx

is giving a 404 Not found error when you click on the English version of case CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

It was now 2013, and on 21 January 2013 I sent the following email to myself of a webpage I had found when surfing the internet:

anon saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you should see it.

Boss jailed for lying to tribunal

A company boss has been jailed after he admitted forging documents in a bid to influence an employment tribunal.

Jason Robinson, 36, who managed a car hire firm in Falkirk, faked a contract and warning letter after a former receptionist accused him of harassment.

Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard that when Susan Moffat was sacked from the firm, Robinson created the documents to avoid paying her £1,750 compensation.

He was jailed for four months for perverting the course of justice.

Fiscal depute Alexis Armit told the court that while Ms Moffat was employed with Robinsons firm from December 2005 to June 2006, she was paid her wages in cash and had never been given a contract to sign.

However, at an employment tribunal on 9 March 2007, Robinson produced a contract of employment and a letter of warning he alleged had been signed by Ms Moffat.

'Certain procedures'

Ms Moffat denied seeing the items and later produced copies of her signature which differed from those on the forged documents.

A later tribunal ultimately found in her favour and she was awarded £29,500.

When contacted by police officers about the discrepancy, Robinson made a full admission.

He admitted presenting the false documents and attempting to influence the judgement of the tribunal and pervert the course of justice.

Defence agent Virgil Crawford said his client had taken issue with some of the evidence at the tribunal.

But, he added: "In the course of the proceedings, he realised certain procedures had not been followed by himself and in particular no written contract of employment had been issued by him.

"By the close of business he knew he would have to go into the witness box and he was worried about criminal proceedings."

Sheriff Isabella McColl said the case was one of the most serious cases of attempting to pervert the course of justice she had seen.

She told Robinson that the system of justice relied on honest evidence and to produce forged documents at an employment tribunal undermined the whole system.

Two days later I sent the following email to the Police:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Formal Complaint

I wish to lodge a formal complaint regarding processes and procedures.

I was a party to civil proceedings against my employer. During these civil proceedings myself and a number of witnesses present at the proceedings, witnessed perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence and witness collusion, all of which perverted the course of justice. My employer, despite committing these crimes, then proceeded to apply for costs against me amounting to approximately £10,700.00. I consider this fraud, as it is money gained by criminal activity.

Both myself and one of the witnesses have tried on various occasions to report this crime to the Police, but on three occasions never got by the Desk Sergeant, and on one occasion a Constable just stated that it was a Civil matter and not a matter for the Police.

I wish you to please look into this matter, and to resolve this matter as soon as possible, by making sure that the relevant Police Department contacts me and reviews the evidence that I have.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

Later that afternoon I received the following email reply from the Police:

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Thank you for your email

Can you please advise in detail what your complaint is and I will forward it on to our Professional Standards Department.

Also, if you can add a contact phone number.

Strathclyde Police Contact Centre

That evening I sent the following email to the Police:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email.

Both myself and a witness went to a Solicitor earlier today (23-Jan-13), who reviewed some of the evidence I had, and advised me to contact the Police. When I stated to the Solicitor that the last time the witness had contacted the Police, last week, the Police had told the witness to contact a Solicitor, the Solicitor then suggested that I should contact the Police Commissioner. When I went onto the Police Complaints Commissioners (PCC) website, the website stated that before contacting the PCC, you should have made a formal complaint to the Police force who dealt with the incident.

That is the history behind where we are at just now.

As to further details regarding my initial email, there is not much more that I can add regarding the formal complaint regarding processes and procedures, other than myself and a witness tried to report the crimes outlined, perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence and witness collusion, at two separate Police stations, twice at each Police station, but didn't get by the desk sergeants on three occasions, and on one occasion a Constable just stated that it was a Civil matter and not a matter for the Police.

It is not a complaint against any individual(s), rather it seems to be a processes and procedures problem.

Regarding my initial case, the reporting of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence and witness collusion, I would be grateful if you could get someone who deals with these types of crimes to contact me.

Please do not hesitate to contact me either by email or telephone if you require any further information.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Late that evening I received the following email from the Police:

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Thank you again for your email.

I have forwarded to our Professional Standards Dept

Strathclyde Police Contact Centre

On 29 January 2013, I went on to the Liberty website and proceeded to fill out an online form regarding the European Court of Human Rights and the UK and Malta sitting in judgement of each other.

Around three days later I received the following letter from the Police:

STRATHCLYDE POLICE

CHIEF CONSTABLE Campbell Corrigan

Professional Standards Department

Police Headquarters

173 Pitt Street

GLASGOW

G2 4JS

30 January 2013

Your Ref:

Our Ref: D/NW/HT - MI/00338/12

Mr K R McAlpine

Dear Mr McAlpine

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED

I acknowledge receipt of your letter and note the content therein.

I have referred the matter to the Division concerned to undertake enquiries. An officer from the Division will contact you in due course.

I trust this is of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

Superintendent

Professional Standards Department

On 13 February 2013 I sent the following email to the Police:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your Ref: D/NW/HT - MI/00338/12

It has been two weeks since your last correspondence stating that an officer from the Division will contact me.

Can you please outline what Division you refer to in the letter, and when I should expect an officer to contact me?

I must also stress at this point, and stated in my earlier email, that I require to report serious crimes including perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence witness collusion and fraud, all committed in Glasgow.

Who should these crimes in Glasgow be reported to, someone at Pitt Street?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the Police:

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Thank you for your email, it has been forwarded to the relevant department and they will response to you directly.

Regards

Strathclyde Police

Later that same day I received another email from the Police:

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your email.

I have contacted division and an officer will be in contact with you shortly to discuss the contents of your email.

I trust this is of assistance.

Kind regards,

Complaints Assessment Review

On 3 March 2013 I sent the following email to the Police:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email.

I have now had a chance to speak with an Inspector Kelly at the Irvine Police Station on the phone, and handed a Lever Arch folder of evidence to Inspector Kelly at my front door, as he was passing through my village on 17 February 2013.

I had a meeting with Inspector Kelly at Irvine Police Station on Kilwinning Road on Saturday 2 March 2013 at 16:15. This meeting lasted around 2.5 hours.

We discussed at length, and fundamentally disagreed on whether the evidence in the lever arch folder constituted crimes, Inspector Kelly was of the opinion that no crimes had been committed, whereas I was of the opinion that multiple crimes had been committed including perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, all resulting in perverting the course of justice at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal.

I believe that it is in the public interest to report this to the Police Complaints Commissioner, and I informed Inspector Kelly that this would be the next probable course of action.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The next day I sent the following email as a Freedom of Information request to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

My ex-employer has stated at an Employment Tribunal that they made 121 employees redundant in 2006, I believe that this is a mistake, and that they made around 121 employees redundant in 2005.

My ex-employer is Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

Can you confirm that you have no record of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd making 121 employees redundant in 2006?

Can you confirm that you have a record of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd making 121 employees redundant in 2005?

Mr KR McAlpine

On 26 March 2013 I received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Please see attached response to your request for information regarding Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

Yours Sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

The Insolvency Service

Attached document read:

The Insolvency Service

Mr K R McAlpine

Your ref:

Our ref: Policy LJ

Date: 26th March 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Redundancy Notification

I refer to your request of 4th March 2013 for information regarding redundancies made by the Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

I regret to inform you that I am unable to provide the details you have requested for the reasons given below.

The Insolvency Service's Redundancy Payments Service (RPS) receives advanced notification of redundancies under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation ) Act 1992. Section 193 of the Act requires an employer to notify the Secretary of State (who the RPS acts on behalf of in these matters) where it is proposed to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees from an establishment.

Any information which is provided is commercially confidential and for the purpose of providing those facing redundancy with assistance such as training and job seeking advice. It may not be used by other bodies for any other purpose, and is therefore only given to Government Departments and Agencies, like Job Centre Plus, who provide these services.

Such information is not in the public domain and it is open to employers to sue the Secretary of State for breach of confidence if unauthorised disclosures were made.

The RPS therefore neither confirms whether information has been received or provides details of any notification.

I hope you will appreciate the reasons for the decision not to provide any information is response to your request but I would advise you that if you do not agree with the decision you have the right to request a review.

If you do wish to request a review, you can do so by writing to :

Sarah Saunders

Joint Head of the Redundancy Payments Service

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

PO Box 15424

Birmingham

B16 6JJ

I am sorry to bring you this disappointing news

Yours Sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

Redundancy Payments Service

Later that same day I sent the following email to the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been waiting on a form arriving from the Police for 3 weeks.

How long should I give the Police to provide me with the form, which I believe I have to sign, which allows me to take a complaint to the Police Complaints Commissioner?

If the Police do not provide me with this form, how can I take my complaint to the Police Complaints Commissioner?

Mr KR McAlpine

Chapter 8

On 26 March 2013 I sent the following email to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you inform me of what type of information I can receive via a Freedom Of Information request to The Insolvency Service?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland:

Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland

Hamilton House,

Hamilton Business Park,

Caird Park,

Hamilton ML3 0QA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

Our ref: PCCS/00501/12

27 March 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your application for a review of the way Strathclyde Police handled your complaint.

I have been advised by Strathclyde Police that they are in receipt of correspondence from you, and would expect them to contact you in due course. As previously advised, the PCCS can only review a complaint once the policing body concerned has dealt with it through its internal procedures.

If, once you have received a final response to your complaint, you remain dissatisfied about the way in which it has been handled, the PCCS may then be able to look at your case. In the meantime, if you have any concerns regarding the progress of your complaint, please contact Professional Standards Department of Strathclyde Police.

Yours sincerely

Ms L McCord

Corporate Services Team

The next morning I sent the following email to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to request a review of this FOI decision, and have attached a review document to this email.

Mr McAlpine

Attached document read:

Sarah Saunders

Joint Head of the Redundancy Payments Service

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

PO Box 15424

Birmingham

B16 6JJ

Dear Sarah Saunders,

On 4th March 2013, I, Kenneth McAlpine, made a Freedom Of Information (FOI) request to The Insolvency Service.

This FOI requested the following information:

Can you confirm that you have no record of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd making 121 employees redundant in 2006?

Can you confirm that you have a record of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd making 121 employees redundant in 2005?

On 26th March 2013, The Insolvency Service emailed me to inform me that they could not provide any information.

This decision puzzled me because according to the Information Commissioners website:

Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations you have a right to request any recorded information held by a public authority, such as a government department, local council or state school. Environmental information requests can also be made to certain non-public bodies carrying out a public function.

You can ask for any information you think a public authority may hold. The right only covers recorded information which includes information held on computers, in emails and in printed or handwritten documents as well as images, video and audio recordings.

You should identify the information you want as clearly as possible.

Your request can be in the form of a question, rather than a request for specific documents, but the authority does not have to answer your question if this would mean creating new information or giving an opinion or judgment that is not already recorded.

Some information may not be given to you because it is exempt, for example because it would unfairly reveal personal details about somebody else.

The Information that I am requesting is information that you hold, the information has been clearly identified and is in the form of a question, and the information does not reveal any personal details or commercially sensitive data, it is simply a yes or no answer.

If you do not provide this data, I should make you aware of the following:

During an Employment Tribunal, Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, stated that they had made 121 employees redundant in 2006, please see extracts from the Employment Tribunal Judgement below:

Now, if employers can freely state in Tribunals and Courts that redundancies have taken place, and employees cannot check whether employers are telling the truth by using FOI requests, then the withholding of this crucial information can only be regarded as obstruction of justice, or conspiring with others to pervert the course of justice.

So, I will ask for this information one last time:

Can you confirm that you have no record of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd making 121 employees redundant in 2006?

Can you confirm that you have a record of Oracle Corporation UK Ltd making 121 employees redundant in 2005?

Incidentally, I believe that it is a statutory requirement for Oracle Corporation UK Ltd to have completed an HR1 if they have made more than 20 employees redundant, so I would expect The Insolvency Service to investigate Oracle Corporation UK Ltd as they have stated that they made 121 redundancies in 2006. Do you have an HR1 from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in 2006?

Yours sincerely,

Kenneth Robert McAlpine

That same morning I received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your request which I am forwarding on to Sarah Saunders today.

Yours Sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

The Insolvency Service

Around 3 April 2013 I received the following letter from the Police:

POLICE SCOTLAND

01 April 2013

Your Ref:

Our Ref:

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

North Ayrshire Sub Division

Ayrshire Division

25 Kilwinning Road

IRVINE KAl2 8RR

Dear Mr McAlpine

I apologise for the delay in the response to your correspondence however some enquiries can take longer than others to bring to a conclusion.

I refer to your email of 23 January 2013 to Strathclyde Police Professional Standards Department where you request that your allegation of perjury and other serious offences made against your previous employer, be reviewed by a senior officer.

As the Area Commander in charge of operational policing in North Ayrshire, I have overall responsibility for all police officers working in this area and I oversee initial enquiries relating to complaints and issues raised by members of the public. I can assure you that I take this role very seriously and before deciding what course of action to take, I weigh up all the evidence and information and carefully review all relevant circumstances.

From the information provided in your email you expressed concerns with regards to Strathclyde Police not taking the appropriate action to deal with allegations of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence and witness collusion relating to an employment tribunal. You have indicated that you believe this matter constituted a crime and wished the police to review documentation you had in your possession.

I can confirm that on receipt of your email I instructed Inspector Alister Kelly a response Policing Inspector stationed at Irvine Police Office to investigate this matter and report back his findings to myself. Accordingly I am now in a position to provide you with the following update.

Inspector Kelly informed me that after initially speaking with yourself via phone, arrangements were made for him to attend at your home and uplift a folder of "evidence" of the alleged offences on 17 February 2013. Inspector Kelly confirms that he examined the contents of the documentation within the folder prior to arranging a further meeting with you on 2 March 2013 within Irvine Police Office.

Inspector Kelly has advised me that you provided a time line of events in relation to your employment tribunal and the subsequent appeals that followed.

I have been advised that you had attended at Saltcoats Police Office on two occasions, as well as Pitt Street Police Office on one occasion to report the alleged offences. In addition to this I also have been made aware that your mother has phoned Strathclyde Police, Pitt Street, Glasgow to report the same offences. I have been advised that on each occasion you and your mother have been informed that no crime had been committed.

Not withstanding the previous assessments that have taken place in relation to your allegations I can confirm that Inspector Kelly has carried out a further and thorough review of the documentation that you have produced and had reached the same conclusion and deemed the previous assessments to have been accurate and correct in determining that no crime had been established.

Furthermore he has confirmed that the folder provided by yourself, whilst extensive in nature, contained nothing of evidential value which would substantiate a crime on the part of your ex employer, or indeed any individuals associated with the employment tribunal.

Inspector Kelly further confirmed that the allegations you are making have previously also been addressed at the employment tribunal by the Tribunal Board and were dismissed in the final judgement as well as within a number of failed appeal processes.

I am aware that at a meeting between yourself and Inspector Kelly on 2 March 2013 you were advised of his findings. I am also aware that it is your position that you remain dissatisfied with the findings of Inspector Kelly's review which is a matter of some regret for both Inspector Kelly and me.

Inspector Kelly has informed me that the officers from Strathclyde with whom you have had contact had acted in a professional, appropriate and proportionate way and therefore no issues have been raised in relation to the conduct of the officer's involved. I can therefore advise you that I will not be taking any action in respect of those officers.

Having reviewed Inspector Kelly's findings regarding your request for a review of his allegations of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence and witness collusion I am satisfied that these allegations do not constitute a criminal offences. I therefore unfortunately have to advise you that no further action will be taken in relation to this matter.

I hope that this information is of assistance to you.

John Hogg

Chief Inspector

Area Commander

North Ayrshire Sub Division

I then sent the following email to the Police on 17 April 2013, with the 1 April 2013 letter attached from the police:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see attached document from the Chief Inspector of the North Ayrshire Sub Division.

I have a number of questions which I hope you can answer:

Is this the final response I require from the Police to take this to the Police Complaints Commissioner?

The Police Complaints Commissioner complaints form asks for a "Police Complaint Reference Number", but I cannot see any "Police Complaint Reference Number" anywhere, how do I get this number?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Later that same day I received the following email from the Police:

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Mr McAlpine,

I can confirm that this is the final letter of response.

The file reference number is: MI/00338/12.

I trust this is of assistance to you.

Regards

Complaints Assessment Review

Twelve days later I received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

FAO Mr K R McAlpine

Dear Sir

Please find attached my letter of today's date with enclosure.

I apologise that there will be a further delay before a full response will be issued, as explained in the attached letter.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should there be any matters you wish to clarify further.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Saunders

Attached document read:

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

PO Box 15424

Birmingham

B16 6JJ

Mr K R McAlpine

Our Ref: SKS

Date: 29th April 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Redundancy Notification

Thank you for your request for a review of the decision, dated 26th March 2013, not to provide you with information regarding redundancies made by Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

I apologise that there will be a further delay in my response to you.

It has been identified that the Redundancy Payments Service may still hold some records relating to pre-2009, in archive storage. Accordingly, further enquires need to be made. Following this, I will be able to respond more fully to your request.

I intend to reply by no later than 13 May 2013.

In the interim it might be helpful if I explain that the form, HR1, is only a statement by the employer, or someone authorised to act on their behalf. The HR1 is not a confirmed or verified record of actual redundancies which took place.

You have the right to make a complaint under the Insolvency Service's complaints procedure and I am enclosing a copy of the leaflet 'Complaints Procedure' for your information.

If you disagree with any final decision provided by The Insolvency Service you can ask the Information Commissioner to review the decision. He may be contacted at:

Information Commissioners Office,

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Generally the Information Commissioner does not accept referrals until a matter has been fully dealt with through The Insolvency Service's own internal complaints procedure as detailed in our leaflet.

Details of the services of the Information Commissioner can be found at: www.ico.gov.uk

I apologise again for the delay in my response.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Saunders

Joint Head of the Redundancy Payments Service

On 3 May 2013 I sent the following email to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

You have gave me your valued views in the past when I submitted CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011, and I hope you can give me your views on the following:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/Jurisprudence.aspx

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

Start of facts of the case: 11 April 2005

First Court Case: 5 August 2005

Last Court Case: 4 February 2009

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 3 May 2008

Result: Admissable

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Start of facts of the case: 10 July 2006

First Court Case: 2 July 2007

Last Court Case: 12 February 2010

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 6 September 2009

Result: Inadmissable

Can you explain to me why CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 was admissable, and why CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 was inadmissable?

Mr KR McAlpine

That same morning I sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached my complaint to the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (aka: Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland).

I have attached the following documents to this email:

McAlpine_Application_Form.doc (My PIRC Application Form)

McAlpine_Complaint_Section_C.doc (Further information on Section C of the PIRC Application Form)

Police_1_Apr_2013.doc (final letter from Chief Inspector dismissing complaint)

If you have any enquiries regarding my application, or require more information, please do not hesitate to contact me at the email address.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

First attached document read:

Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland

Complaint review form

Section A - Your details

Filled out this part of the form with my details.

Section B - Your complaint

We can ONLY review how your complaint has been dealt with if you are not happy after the relevant police organisation has tried to sort your complaint out for you. (A police organisation includes, for example, a Scottish police force and the Scottish Police Services Authority.)

Have you complained to the relevant police organisation?

Yes

Which organisation did you complain to?

North Ayrshire Division

Has this organisation finished looking at your complaint?

Yes

Police Complaint Reference Number:

MI/00338/12

Is any other complaint organisation or the Scottish courts dealing with your complaint?

No

Section C - Please tell us what your complaint is about - what has gone wrong?

Please refer to attached document "McAlpine Complaint Section C".

Section D - Please list specific complaints you have about the police. Please be brief and use short sentences.

1: Failing to identify and properly investigate the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, despite the overwhelming evidence supplied to the police regarding these crimes.

2: When trying to report these crimes at various police offices, being repeatedly told that because it was a civil matter the police could not investigate it.

As a taxpayer and member of the public, I am utterly shocked at the misconduct in public office, when the police are presented with such overwhelming evidence of the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, and still maintain that no crimes have been committed.

The definition of misconduct in public office is "when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office". The police are funded by the taxpayer and are public servants with a duty to uphold the law.

For the above reasons, I believe it is in the public interest for the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner to investigate this matter, and for myself to make the evidence, police response and Police Investigations and Review Commissioner investigation public as the taxpayer has a right to know how their money is being spent.

Section E – What do you want us to do for you?

I wish the Commissioner to direct the police body to reconsider the complaint. I also wish the Commissioner to make recommendations to the police body to carry out further investigation and provide a further response to myself, and to make changes to its practices and procedures to prevent the same problem arising again.

The second attached document "McAlpine Complaint Section C" read:

1: Failing to identify and properly investigate the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, despite the overwhelming evidence supplied to the police regarding these crimes.

During early January 2013, I became aware of a news article on the BBC website regarding a manager who had faked two documents at an Employment Tribunal and been sent to prison for 4 months for perverting the course of justice.

This concerned me, as I had tried to report my similar, but much larger case to the Police on three separate occasions, only to be told that it was a civil matter, and the Police could not do anything.

I notice that Chief Inspector Hogg, in his letter to me dated 1 April 2013, has stated:

"I have been advised that on each occasion you and your mother have been informed that no crime had been committed."

This is wrong. I was informed on each occasion that because it was a civil matter, the Police could not do anything. The Police did not look at any of the evidence on these three occasions.

On 23 January 2013, I sent an email to Strathclyde Police contactus email address, complaining about this matter, and asking if someone could look at the evidence.

After a few emails between myself and Professional Standards Complaints Assessment Review, an Inspector Kelly from North Ayrshire Division phone me and picked up my folder of evidence on 17 February 2013.

On 2 March 2013 at 16:15, I had a meeting with Inspector Kelly that lasted 2.5 hours. During this meeting, Inspector Kelly informed me that he could see no evidence that any crimes had been committed. I informed him that I disagreed with these findings, and it was my intention to take the matter to the Police Complaints Commissioner.

Inspector Kelly then phoned me on 6 March 2013 around 10:30am to ask if it was my intention to take this matter to the Police Complaints Commissioner. I informed Inspector Kelly that it was still my intention to take this matter to the Police Complaints Commissioner.

On 17 April 2013 I finally received a letter from John Hogg, Chief Inspector of North Ayrshire, confirming the above, and outlining that these allegations of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud did not constitute criminal offences.

I believe that the evidence I have does constitute the crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, and I have uploaded all the evidence presented to the Police to the password protected website:

<website address removed>

I also have the original folder handed to the Police if you prefer to work with the lever arch folder.

In order to resolve this complaint, the Police Complaints Commissioner is going to have to determine whether the evidence presented by myself does, or does not, constitute any of the crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and/or fraud.

2: When trying to report these crimes at various police offices, being repeatedly told that because it was a civil matter the police could not investigate it.

From approximately 2008 to 2013, I have tried to report these crimes to the Police on four separate occasions. On three of these occasions Officers told me that because it was a civil matter the Police could not investigate the matter. It was only when I learned on the Internet that a manager had been convicted of perverting the course of justice because he altered a couple of documents, that I realised that the information the Police had told me was incorrect, as this was a civil matter that was investigated, and someone had been brought to justice.

In order to resolve this complaint, the Police Complaints Commissioner is going to have to change the Police perception. Crimes can be committed in the civil justice system, but this is not a perception that the Police has at present.

The third attached document was the 1 April 2013 letter I had received from the police.

Six days later I received the following email from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I apologise for my delayed response.

Having read through the Committee's views on your case, they concluded that since the facts of your case and related judicial proceedings occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol in the UK, your case is not admissible to be examined by the Committee as it is "out of time".

Regarding your application for leave to appeal to the Court of Sessions in February 2010, after the entry into force of the OP in the UK, the Committee found that the Court's rejection of your leave to appeal did not qualify as a reiteration of the previous rulings made by the lower courts on the substance of your complaint - i.e. that the Court's decision did not constitute a ruling on the substance of your case and so still could not be considered by the Committee - only those decisions on the substance of your complaint could, and they occurred before the entry into force of the CRPD.

It is implied that they considered that the facts and alleged violations in your case did not continue after the entry into force of the CRPD.

Regarding the HM v Sweden case, the facts and proceedings all occurred after the date of entry into force of the OP in Sweden, which is why it was admissible by the Committee.

This week another decision has been made public by the Committee against Hungary - in this case the facts and judicial proceedings started before the entry into force of the CRPD & OP in Hungary, however, they continued after the entry into force (in 2008). The case concerned two visually impaired persons being denied access to the banking services to which they contracted on an equal basis with others due to inaccessible ATMs. The Committee found that the facts were still in force after and up to the time of examination of the communication (i.e. the authors continued to be denied access to accessible ATMs).

I hope this is more clear for you now. If you would like further clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Victoria

The next morning I sent the following email reply to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

Thank you for your reply.

Without wishing to get into an argument with you, you are just covering up for the CRPD system that you work with, and making and supporting judgments on a case without seeing the evidence, which is dreadful for a lawyer.

CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

In the UK, the Court of Session is the highest court in Scotland. As such, it is a court of appeal, ie: like all higher courts it only deals with appeals. Appeals are appeals based on the decisions of lower courts, and the decisions of lower courts are the decisions based on the facts of the case. if it is not apparent to you already, there is a causal link between the two, as one does not happen unless the other has happened.

No-one, not you, and not the UN can honestly say that "the Court's rejection of your leave to appeal did not qualify as a reiteration of the previous rulings made by the lower courts". What do you think the Court of Session was ruling on?

If you don't believe me, look at the Court of Session judgment in this link:

<linked removed>

Do you still maintain that the Court of Session decision was not based on the substance of my case?

You have also stated "The Committee found that the facts were still in force after and up to the time of examination of the communication (i.e. the authors continued to be denied access to accessible ATMs).". This is true. What is also true is that as a diabetic my employment at Oracle continues to be denied. My rights to justice and discrimination laws also continue to be denied.

So, why was CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 accepted, and CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 not?

ps: If you still don't believe me, take a look at this link <link removed> which shows, from the UK Government, that there never was 121 redundancies in 2006, only 121 redundancies in 2005, so I was never part of 121 redundancies in 2006 to cover up for the discrimination.

Kenneth

Within an hour I received the following email reply from the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Your email asked me to explain how the cases differed re admissibility and I provided a response based on the views of the Committee. At no point did I share my own personal views but simply tried my best to explain, in my own understanding, what was the interpretation of the Committee - of course I could be wrong in my understanding of their decision.

I understand that you do not agree with the Committee's decision and unfortunately there is no further official recourse available to you, which I acknowledge is very frustrating.

While there can be no re-examination of your case, I think it could be an idea that you could write a letter to the Committee about why you think their decision was erroneous and ask for further explanation. This does not mean that they will necessarily respond but it could be something to consider.

Kind regards,

Victoria

I immediately sent the following email reply to the International Disability Alliance:

Dear Victoria,

This is not personal.

You work for an organisation which states:

"International Disability Alliance

Our Vision

A society which values diversity, respects equality and realizes the full potential of persons with disabilities in order to build a better world for all.

Our Mission

To advance the human rights of persons with disabilities as a united voice of organizations of persons with disabilities utilizing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and other human rights instruments."

However, the IDA is not valuing diversity and respecting equality and certainly not advancing the rights of all persons with disabilities utilizing the CRPD, when a diabetic is making the IDA aware of the differences between two decisions by the CRPD committee, which in themselves, could be deemed to be discrimination against diabetics, because they did not accept the diabetics petition, but did accept another petition, despite the two events happening before the OP came into force.

If you do nothing, despite this being pointed out to you, then your vision, mission and values stand for nothing.

The CRPD committee cannot pick and choose on personal preference as this is discrimination. There has to be clear and concise lines drawn, either CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 AND CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 are both accepted, or CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 AND CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 are both rejected.

You could raise a petition on those grounds alone.

Kenneth

Later that afternoon I received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

FAO Mr K R McAlpine

Dear Sir

Please find attached my letter of today's date.

I will also issue a hard copy by first class post today.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Saunders

Joint Head of Redundancy Payments Service

Attached document read:

The Insolvency Service

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

PO Box 15424

Birmingham

B16 6JJ

Your ref:

Our ref: Sarah Saunders

Date: 13 May 2013

Mr K R McAlpine

Dear Mr McAlpine

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Redundancy Notification

I refer to your request of 4th March 2013 for information regarding redundancies made by the Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, and my letter of 29 April 2013.

Ordinarily the information you have requested would not be released as the submission of the HR1 form and its contents are imparted in confidence by the employer, with the relevant data only being used for statutory purposes. It is open to employers to sue the Secretary of State for breach of commercial confidentiality if unauthorised disclosures are made.

I am therefore providing the following details on the basis of legal advice received, giving due consideration to the age of the original events, and the reasons and information provided in your Freedom of Information request.

I would again draw to your attention that an HR1 form is a statement of redundancies, not a verifiable record of actual redundancies.

I advise that the Redundancy Payments Service holds information from Oracle Corporation UK Limited of 144 proposed redundancies by the employer in 2006.

Yours Sincerely

Sarah Saunders

Joint Head of Redundancy Payments Service

The last email I sent that day was the following email to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Sarah,

On a scale of 0 to 100%, 100% being 100% certain of the fact:

When you stated "I advise that the redundancy Payments Service holds information from Oracle Corporation UK Limited of 144 proposed redundancies by the employer in 2006.", how certain are you that the year was 2006?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The last email I received that day was an automated email reply from the Insolvency Service:

Thank you for your e-mail.

I am now out of office until Tuesday 14 May 2013.

The next morning I received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

Mr McAlpine

There is a statutory requirement for the Government to assist employees facing redundancy. In order to do this, advance notification of potential redundancies is required from the employer. The requirement is under legislation – section 193 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations [Consolidation Act] 1992.

The RPS acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) collects the information and distributes it to other relevant Government Departments, Offices and Agencies who can provide assistance to the affected employees, such as Job Centre plus, in providing services for re-employment, guidance, and training opportunities.

The HR1 form contains a section that requires the employer to assert that the information contained is correct.

My response to you was in relation to information held by the Redundancy Payments Service.

I regret I am unable to comment further.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Saunders

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Sarah,

I want you to confirm that you are 100% certain that the date in the FOI was 2006, and that it is not a typo. That's all.

If you cannot confirm the information given in FOI, then what is the point of any FOI.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

I received the following email reply from the Insolvency Service:

Mr McAlpine

I refer you to my answer as detailed in my letter of yesterday's date.

"I advise that the Redundancy Payments Service holds information from Oracle Corporation UK Limited of 144 proposed redundancies by the employer in 2006."

"I would again draw to your attention that an HR1 form is a statement of redundancies, not a verifiable record of actual redundancies."

As advised previously, I regret that I cannot comment further.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Saunders

I then sent the following email reply to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Sarah,

Thank you for double checking and confirming this information

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The next morning I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Lynn McCord

Admin Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Attached document read:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton ML3 0QA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

15 May 2013

PIRC/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your Application Form which we received on 7 May 2013 concerning your complaint that Strathclyde Police failed to investigate allegations which you had reported to it.

I note from section D of your application form that you believe that it would be in the public interest for your complaint to be investigated by the PIRC. I also note from section E of the same form that you wish the PIRC to direct the police body to reconsider your complaint and to recommend that the Police Service of Scotland ("the PSS") investigates further and changes its practices and procedures.

In respect of your request that we conduct a public interest investigation into your complaint, the Police and Fire Reform Act 2012 provides, inter alia, that the Commissioner, where directed to do so by an appropriate prosecutor, will investigate any circumstances in which there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed an offence, or may investigate other matters relating to the Police Service where the Commissioner considers it would be in the public interest to do so. From examining the attached correspondence it is clear that the police considered that they could not investigate the reported matter as they determined that it fell into a category covered by civil law and, as such, it is not one of the functions of the police to investigate such claims. While recognising that you are clearly unhappy with the police position on this matter I can find no justification in the material presented at present that would necessitate any investigation in the public interest into the police handling of this matter.

In respect of your request that we recommend that the PSS reconsiders your complaint, I am aware that you have made submissions to Strathclyde Police and that you have received a number of responses in this connection. We have been informed by the PSS that your communications to it have not been treated as a complaint about the police and that the letter which you received from Chief Inspector Hogg dated 1 April 2013 was as a result of its review of the decision not to investigate the alleged crimes which you had reported to Strathclyde Police.

In order for the PIRC to review your complaints, they must first be made to the police and thereafter investigated as such. As noted above, the police involvement in your case has taken the form of a review of your allegations and no complaint has been recorded under your name. Accordingly, the PIRC has no remit to conduct a review of your case at this time. Should you now wish to pursue this as a complaint, please contact Professional Standards Department of the PSS. Should you remain dissatisfied following the police response to your complaint, it is open to you to refer the matter to the PIRC at that time.

Yours sincerely

Lynn McCord

Corporate Service Team

I immediately sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Lynn,

The reason why Inspector Kelly was assigned to my complaint was that I had contacted the Professional Standards Department to make the complaint (see the whole attached email chain "RE: Formal Complaint (McAlpine)").

On the 23 January 2013 I lodged a formal complaint with the Police (see attached "RE: Formal Complaint (McAlpine)").

This was forwarded to the Police Professional Standards Department on the same date (see attached "RE: Formal Complaint (McAlpine)").

On 17 April 2013 the Police Professional Standards Department confirmed that the letter from the Chief Inspector was the final letter allowing me to take this to the PIRC.

I trust you will now look into this matter.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The last email I sent that day was to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Sarah,

I am going to make your letters and emails available to current ongoing investigations into this matter, and also put this information out on the public domain after investigations, as it is in the public interest to do so. As you have stated, and verified, the Redundancy Payments Service holds information from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd of 144 proposed redundancies by the employer in 2006.

I know for a fact this is information is untrue.

I have hard factual evidence from multiple sources to prove that this information is untrue.

I will be requesting the current investigations into this matter, and any other relevant parties, review all the evidence, and I will be pushing for a charge of misconduct in public office for whoever is responsible for this untruth.

ps: I am not interested whether you hold information on actual or perceived redundancies, that information is irrelevant to this matter, all that is relevant is whether or not you hold information from Oracle from 2006.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

I then received the following automated email reply from the Insolvency Service:

Thank you for your e-mail.

I am now out of office until Wednesday 15 May 2013.

I then received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Mr McAlpine,

Please find attached letter from Mr Jamie McGrandles, Head of Reviews.

Kind regards

Lynn McCord

Admin Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Attached document read:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton ML3 0QA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

15 May 2013

PIRC/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your e-mail and attached correspondence.

I note from the e-mail which you sent to Strathclyde police on 23 January 2013 that you wished to make a formal complaint about the police. Notwithstanding this, your e-mail appears to have been treated as a request for a review. The Police Service of Scotland has clarified to us that your correspondence was not dealt with as a complaint about the police, and for this reason the letter which you received from Chief Inspector Hogg dated 1 April 2013 did not include a paragraph referring you to the PIRC.

As noted in Ms McCord's previous response to you, in order for the PIRC to review your complaints, they must first be made to the police and thereafter investigated as such. Although it is clear that you have made your complaints to the police, they have not been treated as such. I would ask, therefore, that you now contact the Police Service of Scotland in order for it to formally record and investigate your complaints. I realise my advice may be a source of frustration for you, however I must reiterate that the PIRC has no remit in your case at this time.

Should you remain dissatisfied with the response you receive from the Police Service of Scotland following its investigation into your complaint, it is open to you to refer the matter to the PIRC at that time.

Yours sincerely,

Jamie McGrandles

Head of Complaints

I then sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McGrandles,

I'm sorry, but this is fast becoming a Circus.

Am I missing something here, because the last email I received from the Police was from the "Police Professional Standards Complaints Assessment Review" which clearly stated "I can confirm that this is the final letter of response" when asked "Is this the final response I require from the Police to take this to the Police Complaints Commissioner?"?

However, I will do as you say, and give the Police one last chance and take this whole matter back to the Police.

If I do get back to you to raise the same complaint, I will be adding another complaint to the original complaints regarding the Police not treating complaints as complaints, and the PIRC not treating complaints as complaints.

I hope that this meets with your approval, and clarifies things in the meantime.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The last email I sent that day was to the Police:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Apologies, but this seems to be back with you.

Please refer to attached letter "McAlpine Mr K..." from PIRC.

Then please refer to the other three attachments regarding my complaint about the Police.

I trust you will follow the PIRC, and treat and investigate this as a complaint.

If you require any further help, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Five days later I received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

Dear Mr McAlpine.

I regret that the information provided to you was not what you were hoping for.

As stated in previous correspondence the RPS holds information of 144 proposed redundancies by Oracle in 2006.

Again I would remind you that this submission by Oracle relates only to proposed redundancies in 2006, and does not relate to redundancies that may or may not have occurred in that calendar year.

It would be inappropriate for the Redundancy Payments Service to speculate on the veracity of the data contained within the submission by Oracle.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Details of the services of the Information Commissioner can be found at: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely

Sarah Saunders

I then sent the following email reply to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Sarah,

Can you provide the date that this data was added to your system?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

I then sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please see attached letter.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

Attached letter read:

Mr K McAlpine

20 May 2013

Reference: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 and CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

OHCHR

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

Palais Des Nations

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

I was the person who submitted communication CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 to you in 2011. This communication was inadmissible as the facts of the case happened before the entry into force of the CRPD.

I have recently become aware of communication CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010, recently published on your website, and I cannot see why this communication has been accepted and communication CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 was not accepted.

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

Start of facts of the case: 11 April 2005

First Court Case: 5 August 2005

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 3 May 2008

Last Court Case: 4 February 2009

Result: Admissable

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Start of facts of the case: 10 July 2006

First Court Case: 2 July 2007

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 6 September 2009

Last Court Case: 12 February 2010

Result: Inadmissable

The final appeal in communication CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 was refused, and the final appeal in communication CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 was refused.

Question 1

What is the CRPD Committee going to do about this injustice?

Question 2

If the CRPD Committee is not going to do anything about this injustice, whom can I complain to about this injustice?

Question 3

If the CRPD Committee is not going to do anything about this injustice, and I cannot complain to anyone else about this injustice, can I raise a communication against the CRPD Committee?

Yours sincerely,

Kenneth Robert McAlpine

I then received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your e-mail of today's date.

Your request will be dealt with as a new Freedom of Information request, and a response will be sent to you within 20 working days.

Please accept this e-mail as an acknowledgment of your request.

The Information Commissioner's website also provides further guidance and services, which you may find useful: www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Saunders

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Sarah,

While we are at it, and considering you have made a new FOI request, it may be worthwhile just to give me as much information as possible, ie:

A copy of the Oracle HR1 from 2006, or a copy of the Oracle HR1 from 2006 with any sensitive information redacted.

The name of the RPO staff who processed the Oracle HR1 in 2006.

Any computer record of the Oracle HR1 from 2006.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The last email I received that day was from the Insolvency Service:

Thank you for your e-mail.

I am now out of office until Tuesday 21 May 2013.

Chapter 9

Around 25 May 2013 I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR(GEN) - 6/2011

23 May 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine,

We hereby acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 20 May 2013 in which you raise questions with regard to the views adopted by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disability (the Committee) on 16 April 2013, in Communication 1/2010. You express concern following the decision of the Committee to hold this Communication admissible, whereas the Communication you presented in 2011 to the same Committee was held inadmissible Ratione Temporis on 28 September 2012.

In the first place, please note that there is no appeal against Committee decisions: as a rule, a decision of the Committee is final, unless it relates to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies that are later exhausted.

Please also note that before taking a decision, the Committee ensures systematically to develop a thorough analysis of all the facts and evidence submitted both by the author of the complaint and by the State party involved, guaranteeing the adoption of views and decisions in full compliance with the Convention and its Optional Protocol. It is only after such an objective and thorough analysis that the Committee reached its conclusions on your case and on communication 1/2010. Both cases were related to specific and objective facts and circumstances, each calling for independent and individualized decisions in application of the Convention and of the Committee's jurisprudence.

As mentioned in previous correspondence, you can access additional information about the procedures for the examination of individual petitions on human rights violations on our website: www.ohchr.org, at the following link: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/index.htm.

Yours sincerely,

Petitions and Inquiries Section

Human Rights Treaties Division

On 28 May 2013 I then sent the following email to the Disability Council International:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you on two matters.

* First matter

The first matter concerns your summary of my case CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011. You may want to read my website listed below to accurately reflect a lot of the information that you have stated in your summary, and you may also wish to post a link to my website so that people with disabilities can accurately see the evidence and judgments in my case.

The company in question made me redundant solely because I had a disability and would require sickness absence in the future because of that disability, and then made up a story that it was because I was part of a larger redundancy which did not happen. Review the evidence.

* Second matter

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

Start of facts of the case: 11 April 2005

First Court Case: 5 August 2005

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 3 May 2008

Last Court Case: 4 February 2009

Result: Admissable

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Start of facts of the case: 10 July 2006

First Court Case: 2 July 2007

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 6 September 2009

Last Court Case: 12 February 2010

Result: Inadmissable

Why was CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 admissable and CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 inadmissable?

Thanks and regards,

Mr KR McAlpine

Later that morning I sent an email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter 23 May 2013 which I received on 28 May 2013 and have now read.

I was extremely disappointed that you did not answer my specific questions in my previous correspondence, but you just stated "please note that there is no appeal against Committee decisions".

Can you provide me with the contact details of the person/department to whom the CRPD Committee report to, or are employed by, so that I can raise my concerns with them?

You also did not answer my question regarding whether I can raise a petition against the CRPD Committee themselves, as I believe that the decisions referred to in my previous correspondence are unjust?

I trust that you will now answer these questions.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

On 30 May 2013 I sent the following email to the Police:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent you the email listed below over two weeks ago.

Can you inform me if any action has been taken regarding this email, and outline the Police complaint procedure and approximate timescales, so that I know what to expect?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The next day I received the following email reply from the Police:

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Mr McAlpine,

I can advise that these matters have been referred to the Division concerned and are currently receiving attention. A letter is on its way to you.

I can also advise that an officer will be in contact with you in due course.

I trust this is of assistance to you meantime.

Kind regards,

Complaints Assessment & Review

The next day I received the following letter from the Police:

POLICE SCOTLAND

30 May 2013

Your Ref:

Our Ref: D/LG/HT — CO/00220/13 West/G

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

Dear Mr McAlpine

COMPLAINT ABOUT THE POLICE

I acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence.

The matter to which you refer will be investigated. A supervisory officer will contact you at an early date in order to discuss your complaint.

I also enclose for your information a copy of a leaflet issued by the Scottish Government, which outlines how complaints about the police are dealt with, and you may find this helpful. The supervisory officer will also be able to give advice on how your complaint will be investigated.

Yours sincerely

T/Superintendent

Professional Standards Department

On 17 June 2013 I sent the following email to the international law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer:

Dear Sir,

Apologies for contacting you, but I read an article on a CRPD communication decision, and that is where I got your email.

I am the author and subject of UN communication number CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011.

The reason why I am writing to you today is this:

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

Start of facts of the case: 11 April 2005

First Court Case: 5 August 2005

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 3 May 2008

Last Court Case: 4 February 2009

Result: Admissable

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Start of facts of the case: 10 July 2006

First Court Case: 2 July 2007

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 6 September 2009

Last Court Case: 12 February 2010

Result: Inadmissable

Why can CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 be admissable ratione temporis and CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 be inadmissable ratione temporis.

I have contacted the UN OHCHR and pointed out this unjust decision, but they have said that they cannot overturn decisions, which is utterly unfair.

The reason why I am writing to you today, is because you are a renowed international lawyer who may know who I can appeal this unjust decision to, so that I can obtain proper justice?

ps: If there is nothing I can do about this unjust decision, could I submit a communication against the CRPD Committee, the OHCHR or the United Nations using article(s) in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

Thanks and regards,

Mr KR McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I regret that there will be a delay in responding to you and, as explained in the attached letter, I hope to be able to provide you with a response in the near future.

Yours Sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

The Insolvency Service

Attached letter read:

The Insolvency Service

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

PO Box 15424

Birmingham

B16 6JJ

Your ref:

Our ref: lj

Date: 18th June 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Redundancy Notification

I refer to your request of 20th May 2013 for information involving notification of proposed redundancies in 2006, made by Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

I apologise that there will be a delay in my response to you as I am seeking further advice regarding the matter.

I intend to reply by no later than 25th June 2013.

You have the right to make a complaint under the Insolvency Service's complaints procedure and I am enclosing a copy of the leaflet 'Complaints Procedure' for your information.

If you disagree with any final decision provided by The Insolvency Service you can ask the Information Commissioner to review the decision. He may be contacted at:

Information Commissioners Office,

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Generally the Information Commissioner does not accept referrals until a matter has been fully dealt with through The Insolvency Service's own internal complaints procedure as detailed in our leaflet.

Details of the services of the Information Commissioner can be found at: www.ico.gov.uk

I apologise again for the delay in my response.

Yours sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

Redundancy Payments Service

Around 22 June 2013 I received the following letter from the Police:

POLICE SCOTLAND

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

20 June 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine

I acknowledge receipt of your complaint and a Police Inspector will be in contact with you in due course.

Yours sincerely

John Hogg

Chief Inspector

On 25 June 2013 I received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I had hoped to be able to respond to you by today but the matter is taking a little longer than anticipated. Please see letter attached.

Yours Sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

The Insolvency Service

Attached letter read:

The Insolvency Service

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

PO Box 15424

Birmingham

B16 6JJ

Your ref:

Our ref: Policy LJ

Date: 25th June 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine

Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Redundancy Notification

I refer to your request of 20th May 2013 for information involving notification of proposed redundancies in 2006, made by Oracle Corporation UK Ltd and my subsequent letter of the 18th June 2013.

As mentioned in my letter, I had hoped to be able to respond to you by today's date but unfortunately I am not yet in a position to do so.

I apologise for this further delay and would advise you that I expect to be able to respond to you by 3rd July 2013.

Yours sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

Redundancy Payments Service

Around 26 June 2013 I sent another appeal to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which was based on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but which was solely based on the judgement of the Court of Session and which was dated after the convention came into force in the UK.

Around 4 July 2013 I received the following letter from the Insolvency Service:

The Insolvency Service

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

PO Box 15424

Birmingham

B16 6JJ

Mr K R McAlpine

Your ref:

Our ref: Lynda Jackson

Date: 2nd July 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Redundancy Notification

I refer to your requests of 20th May 2013 for information, and copies of documents, relating to the notification involving proposed redundancies in 2006, made by the Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

As you are aware from previous correspondence, this information would not ordinarily be released as the submission of the HR1 form and its contents are imparted in confidence by the employer, with the relevant data only being used for statutory purposes.

Following further legal and other advice, I enclose copies of two (redacted) HR1 forms referring to possible redundancies in 2006, which together show 144 possible redundancies.

According to our records the information from one of the forms, showing 95 redundancies, was created on our system on 13th March 2008. We can find no record of the other HR1 (49 possible redundancies) on our system.

The name of the officer who processed the HR1 forms is not held. Please note that such information, even if it had been held would be regarded as personal information and withheld under section 40(2) of the Act.

I hope the above helps to clarify matters but I would advise you that you have the right to make a complaint under the Insolvency Service's complaints procedure and I am enclosing a copy of the leaflet 'Complaints Procedure' for your information.

If you disagree with this decision regarding the information you have requested you can apply for a review by writing to:

Sarah Saunders

Joint Head of the Redundancy Payments Service

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

PO Box 15424

Birmingham

B16 6JJ

If you are dissatisfied with any final decision provided by The Insolvency Service you can ask the Information Commissioner to review the decision. He may be contacted at:

Information Commissioners Office,

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Generally the Information Commissioner does not accept referrals until a matter has been fully dealt with through The Insolvency Service's own internal complaints procedure as detailed in our leaflet.

Details of the services of the Information Commissioner can be found at: www.ico.gov.uk

Yours Sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

Redundancy Payments Service

From my initial email 13 November 2007 I had been questioning why Oracle Corporation UK Limited had never lodged an HR1 form in 2006 for the alleged collective redundancy of 121 employees, and I had received a letter from their lawyers stating on 22 February 2008 that Oracle had not lodged an HR1 form at the time. It was now clear from the last email listed above, that someone had decided to lodge an HR1 form two years late to try and cover up this evidence. Why on earth would the Insolvency Service accept an HR1 form, lodged in 2008, for advanced notification of redundancies to be made in 2006?

Please read that last sentence again until you understand just how ludicrous that sentence is.

Around 18 July 2013 I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR(GEN) - 6/2011

16 July 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine,

On behalf of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, I have the honour to reply to your letter dated 26 June 2013.

In this letter, you express your disagreement with the decision CRPD/C/9/D/6/2011 of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities holding your complaint inadmissible. In this context, you refer to the Committee's views CRPD/C/9/D/1/2011, adopted on 11 April 2013, holding the communication 1/2010 admissible. You also request the High Commissioner's intervention to request the Committee to overturn its decision in your case.

Please note that the Committee is composed of independent experts and that the High Commissioner for Human Rights cannot intervene in its decisions and methods of work.

I refer to the correspondence that you exchanged with the Petitions Unit, in which the Petitions Unit provided with the relevant explanations as to the application of the principle of inadmissibility ratione temporis to your case. May I recall you that the Committee's decision was adopted on clear and objective arguments in so far as the facts referred to in your communication, including the related judicial decisions, all occurred before the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the State party. This was not the case for the facts addressed in decision CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 of the Committee.

I regret I cannot be of any assistance to you in your query.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

On 2 August 2013 I sent the following email to my local Citizens Advice Bureau:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have made a complaint against the Police, and I have now been asked to meet with an Inspector, and provide a statement. Is this something that the CAB can help with, or represent me, or provide support with?

Thanks,

Kenneth

I then sent the following email to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Lynda,

Thank you for your letter and foi papers which I have only just received and read due to being away from home.

As Oracle Corporation UK Ltd submitted an HR1 form in March 2008 for redundancies that took place in April 2006, I have a number of questions:

Why did the Insolvency Service accept an HR1 form ("Advance notification of redundancies") 2 years AFTER the redundancies took place?

Was Oracle Corporation UK Ltd prosecuted and fined?

Mr K McAlpine

I then sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see attached.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

Attached document read:

2 August 2013

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

Palais des Nations

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Ibrahim Salama,

Thank you for your letter, reference G/SO 214/48 GBR(GEN) - 6/2011 dated 16 July 2013, which has now been published at <website removed>, and to which subsequent replies will be published, because I believe it is in the public interest to do so.

Reading the contents of your letter, it is clear that you have done no research whatsoever into this matter, but just published a reply that is a hope rather than factual.

In your reply dated 16 July 2013, you stated:

"May I recall you that the Committee's decision was adopted on clear and objective arguments in so far as the facts referred to in your communication, including the related judicial decisions, all occurred before the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the State party. This was not the case for the facts addressed in decision CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010."

This is not correct, and I will trust in your next reply that you substantiate your claims that you have made in the paragraph above.

As I clearly stated in my last letter to you UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 had a last judicial decision of 12 February 2010 as clearly stated in the UN Judgment, but the entry into force of CRPD convention was 6 September 2009, so clearly your claim "including the related judicial decisions, all occurred before the entry into force of the Convention" is wrong.

You also stated "This was not the case for the facts addressed in decision CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010". Again this is clearly wrong, because the facts addressed in CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 started on 11 April 2005, and the last judicial decision was 4 February 2009, but the entry into force of CRPD convention was 3 May 2008. All these facts are clearly stated in the relevant UN judgments.

As I clearly stated in my letter dated 26 June 2013:

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

Start of facts of the case: 11 April 2005

First Court Case: 5 August 2005

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 3 May 2008

Last Court Case: 4 February 2009

Result: Admissible (ratione temporis)

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Start of facts of the case: 10 July 2006

First Court Case: 2 July 2007

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 6 September 2009

Last Court Case: 12 February 2010

Result: Inadmissible (ratione temporis)

Please explain in detail why one judgment was admissible and the other judgment was inadmissible?

You have also stated that you cannot be of any assistance, so please state who can be of assistance, and who can stop this happening to other people in the future.

Yours sincerely

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Six days later I received the following email from my local Citizens Advice Bureau:

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for your email.

You haven't given us your address or post code; so I'm not sure whether you would be eligible for help from a solicitor from our list; some give a free 30 minute consultation for clients living in North Ayrshire. If you live outside North Ayrshire there may be a suitable organisation in your area who can give more immediate help. Irrespective where you live, we can still give general advice. All our bureaus run drop in services - opening times, addresses from the website or from me.

The complaints procedure goes through a max of three stages: (You are probably at stage two.)

I INFORMAL INVESTIGATION (stage one)

A senior officer will visit or telephone you to discuss the complaint - and the complaints procedure

If it's serious - e.g. alleged criminal conduct by an officer - there will be a formal investigation, see below.

At this stage the senior officer tries to explain why a certain course of action was taken and the police's duties and powers.

If you are satisfied the complaint is concluded at this point. You will probably be asked to sign a notebook or document saying that you're satisfied, and a record of this made.

2 FORMAL INVESTIGATION (stage two)

If no informal conclusion, as above, or the matter is more serious, there will be a formal investigation.

A police officer - the investigating office - makes an appointment with you to hear your side of events - your account. This meeting can take place at the police station, or at your home, if you wish.

This officer will probably want to speak to any witnesses and of course the staff complained about.

You are entitled to have a friend or a representative, (but not a lawyer) at this meeting. We cannot at present provide representation.

The officer is likely to want you to recall the events as they happened, etc. Be calm, take your time, do your best, and ask for a glass of water if you need. If you can't remember exactly say so; no one expects you remember everything. You most likely have had a bad traumatic incident, so be very honest; particularly about the effects on you.

The investigating officer will prepare a report and pass it to the person with overall responsibility for these complaints.

A Deputy Chief Constable (DCC) or other designated officer will consider this report, and may decide:-

* that no further action is needed and the matter has been and will be concluded by explanation; or

* to review a policy, process or procedure and make changes to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen again; or

* to offer you an apology; or

* those involved require training, counselling or advice to improve their performance. In some cases, this could involve the force's internal disciplinary procedures.

You should get the results of the investigation as soon as possible.

III Investigation by the Procurator Fiscal (stage three)

If the case is referred to them by the police, the Fiscal's office decide whether criminal proceedings should be taken up. They may ask you to go to speak to you, to get more information to test whether the evidence will stand up in court.

Once the fiscal has considered the evidence; he/she will have to:-

Write to you to tell you that no criminal proceeding will take place, and refer the case back to the police to decide whether or not misconduct has happened.

Or

Report the case to the Crown Office (the headquarters of the Fiscal service) which decides whether to prosecute the member of the police force concerned. The Fiscal's office will tell what the Crown Office decides; but not the reasons for the decision which remain confidential. If there is a prosecution, you (and any other witnesses) may have to attend court to give evidence.

If you are not happy with the first decision you can write to either to the Area Procurator Fiscal or to the Lord Advocate.

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

25 Chambers Street

Edinburgh

EH1 1LA

Tel: 0131 226 2626

Email: PS/COPFS@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Website: www.copfs.gov.uk

If you are not satisfied with the way that your complaint was handled by the police, you can ask the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner to investigate. You would have three months to do this.

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC)

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 0QA

Tel: 0808 178 5577 or 01698 542900

Email: enquiries@pirc.gsi.gov.uk

Website: www.pirc.scotland.gov.uk

STATEMENT

You should be very careful in preparing your statement - and should make sure you have more than one copy. Prepare the document carefully; sleep on it and make more than copy. Take at least two copies with you - the officer will want to ask you about what you have put down; be ready to answer questions on it.

In your statement be sure to make a distinction between what you know for a fact and your beliefs; it would be unwise to make any personal comments about police officer \- stick to their behaviour and how it made you feel:

At that moment (I believe it was 2.30 - because I checked my watch) that Constable NAME .... WHAT HE DID. I felt HOW YOU FELT e.g. embarrassed/ afraid, ETC. I felt strongly that constable NAME was picking on me because (ONE - HE SAID, HE DID, ETC) I felt WHAT YOU FELT about this.

Try to give a time; if you know it - if not, say what you thought the time was and why

Only write down what you know, i.e. have seen with your own eyes, heard with your own ears, felt with your own skin, etc. Don't write anything that is not your own opinion. Don't quote others' opinions - or say anything like everybody knows, etc.

Facts are more important than an opinion - facts cannot be easily argued away, opinions always can be disputed. Limit yourself to what you know for a fact. Don't bad mouth anyone; be polite

I hope this is of help. You can get back in touch with us if you need to – good luck.

Regards,

James

On 29 August 2013 I received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Please see letter attached regarding the information you requested on 2nd August 2013-

Yours Sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

The Insolvency Service

Attached document read:

The Insolvency Service

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

PO Box 15424

Birmingham

B16 6JJ

Your ref:

Our ref: Lynda Jackson

Date: 29th August 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000

I refer to your e-mail dated 2nd August 2013 regarding your request for information held by The Insolvency Service.

The information you have requested is:

1. Why did the Insolvency Service accept a HR1 (notification) form from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd two years after the proposed redundancies

2. Was Oracle Corporation UK Ltd prosecuted and fined.

I would advise you that we regard the information you have requested as exempt from disclosure under Section 30 of the FOIA and it has therefore been decided not to provide you with the requested details.

The Insolvency Service neither confirms nor denies that the information you have requested is held.

Section 30(1) provides that information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of -

(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained-

(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence,

Section 30(2) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if -

(a) it was obtained or recorded by a public authority for the purpose of its functions relating to –

(i) investigations falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b)

(iii) investigations (other than investigations falling within subsections (1)(a) or (b)) which are conducted by the public authority for any of the purposes specified in section 31(2) and either by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative or by virtue of powers conferred by or under any enactment,

Section 30(3) the duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1) or (2).

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which The Insolvency Service has dealt with this request you have the right to ask for a review within two months of the date of this letter. You may do this by writing to FOI/DPA Team, Technical Section, The Insolvency Service, 1 City Walk, Leeds LS11 9DA, or by email to:

FOI@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk

If you disagree with any final decision provided by The Insolvency Service you may refer this matter to the Information Commissioner. He may be contacted at ICO, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF. Generally the Information Commissioner does not accept referrals until a matter has been fully dealt with through The Insolvency Service's own internal complaints procedure as detailed in our leaflet.

Details of the services of the Information Commissioner can be found at:

www.ico.gov.uk

I enclose for your further information a link to our leaflet entitled 'Complaints Procedure' which provides full details of the internal procedures available to you in pursuing this matter with The Insolvency Service. This may be accessed by using the following link:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/insolvency/docs/publication-pdfs/complaints.pdf

Yours Sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

The last email I sent that day was to the Insolvency Service:

Dear Madam,

Where in my email, 2 August 2013, does it state that I requested a freedom of information request?

I was simply looking for a reason why the Insolvency Service accepted an HR1 form two years late, and a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the second question. This in no way constitutes a freedom of information request, but it is in the public interest to determine whether you, and your department, are performing the duties which taxpayers are paying you to perform.

So, once again, I will ask:

Why did the Insolvency Service accept an HR1 form ("Advance notification of redundancies") 2 years AFTER the redundancies took place?

Was Oracle Corporation UK Ltd prosecuted and fined?

Regards,

Mr McAlpine

Almost three weeks passed when I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR(GEN) - 6/2011

17 September 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine,

On behalf of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, I have the honour to reply to your letter dated 2 August 2013.

In this letter, you reiterate your disagreement with the decision CRPD/C/9/D/6/2011 of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities holding your complaint inadmissible.

As already explained in our previous correspondences, the Committee's decisions are adopted by an independent group of experts and cannot be appealed. Please note that the Committee applies the principle ratione temporis following the same criteria in all cases.

If you consider that your rights under the CRPD have been violated since the entry into force of the Convention in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 7 July 2009, other than through the facts which formed the basis of your earlier communication, you may present a new communication to the Committee.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

I immediately sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see attached.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

Attached document read:

17 September 2013

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

Palais des Nations

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Ibrahim Salama,

Thank you for your letter, reference G/SO 214/48 GBR(GEN) - 6/2011 dated 17 September 2013, which has now been published at <website address removed>, and to which subsequent replies will be published, because I believe it is in the public interest to do so.

In your reply dated 17 September 2013, you stated, "Please note that the Committee applies the principle ratione temporis following the same criteria in all cases."

(a) Can you state the criteria followed in the principle ratione temporis in this case:

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

Start of facts of the case: 11 April 2005

First Court Case: 5 August 2005

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 3 May 2008

Last Court Case: 4 February 2009

Result: Admissible (ratione temporis)

(b) Can you state the criteria followed in the principle ratione temporis in this case:

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Start of facts of the case: 10 July 2006

First Court Case: 2 July 2007

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 6 September 2009

Last Court Case: 12 February 2010

Result: Inadmissible (ratione temporis)

You also failed to answer in any detail the main question I asked in my 2 August 2013 letter:

(c) Please explain in detail why one judgment was admissible and the other judgment was inadmissible?

Can you please answer questions (a), (b) and (c) this time.

Yours sincerely

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

The next day I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see attached.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

Attached document read:

Reference: CRPD_180913

18 September 2013

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

Palais des Nations

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Ibrahim Salama,

Thank you for your letter, reference G/SO 214/48 GBR(GEN) - 6/2011 dated 17 September 2013.

In your reply dated 17 September 2013, you stated, "If you consider that your rights under the CRPD have been violated since the entry into force of the Convention in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 7 July 2009, other than through the facts which formed the basis of your earlier communication, you may present a new communication to the Committee."

I have a number of questions arising from your statement:

(1) Can you explain, in my case, what rights under the CRPD may have been violated since 7 July 2009, which has not been covered by my earlier communication?

(2) Could I present a new communication to the Committee, based only on the Court of Session judgment issued on 12 February 2010, even if parts of this appeal references facts which happened before 7 July 2009?

(3) Despite various appeals, the judgment that diabetes results in future sickness absence has not been overturned, could this point be the basis of a new communication to the Committee?

(4) If the answer to (1), (2) and (3) is negative, please explain how I could present a new communication to the Committee regarding my case?

Yours sincerely

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

Around 19 September 2013 I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR (GEN) CE/APP/mbe . 6/2011

17 September 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine,

On behalf of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, I have the honour to reply to your letter dated 2 August 2013.

In this letter, you reiterate your disagreement with the decision CRPD/C/9/D/6/2011 of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities holding your complaint inadmissible.

As already explained in our previous correspondences, the Committee's decisions are adopted by an independent group of experts and cannot be appealed. Please note that the Committee applies the principle ratione temporis following the same criteria in all cases.

If you consider that your rights under the CRPD have been violated since the entry into force of the Convention in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 7 July 2009, other than through the facts which formed the basis of your earlier communication, you may present a new communication to the Committee.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

Around 19 September 2013 I also received the following letter from the Police:

POLICE SCOTLAND

17 September 2013

Your Ref:

Our Ref: JH/CO/00220/13/UAl26/13

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

Dear Mr McAlpine,

COMPLAINT ABOUT THE POLICE

I refer to your letter of complaint received by the Police Scotland, Professional Standards Department on the 28 May 2013 with regards to the police having failed to identify and investigate serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud after you had attempted to report these incidents as crimes. I would also refer to previous correspondence of 2 July 2013 and 1 April 2013.

As the Area Commander in charge of operational policing in North Ayrshire, I have responsibility for all police officers working in this area and I oversee initial enquiries relating to complaints about the police as well as policing issues raised by members of the public. I can assure you that I take this role very seriously and before deciding what course of action to take, I weigh up all the evidence and information and carefully review all relevant circumstances.

As you are also aware, I have previously corresponded with you by letter after you had requested a review of a folder of documents which you claimed included evidence of the aforementioned crimes. On this occasion the documents were reviewed by an experienced police Inspector and no evidence of criminality was found. You were subsequently advised of this in the aforesaid correspondence.

I have however instructed that a further investigation be carried out in respect of your contact with the Professional Standards Department and I have dealt with this matter as a non-criminal complaint about the police. I have categorised the complaint as a `Quality of Service' complaint relating to 'Service Outcome and the Police Failure to Take Action'.

On receipt of your complaint I instructed Inspector Gordon Jones to conduct an investigation and to report his findings back to me. In conjunction with this I also instructed Detective Inspector Steven Wallace, who is a very experienced detective officer, to carry out a further review of the documentation you perceive to be evidence of criminality in order to provide a second and specialist opinion on the matter.

When dealing with complaints about the police, the investigating officer collates all of the evidence available including statements and also any relevant documentation available. In this case the only relevant evidence is that of the folder you have provided for reference and review, the statement you have provided to Inspector Jones, the statement from Inspector Kelly and finally, the information provided by Detective Inspector Wallace.

In your statement, you have provided a detailed account of the history of you pursuing an unfair dismissal claim against your former employer through an Employment Tribunal. This history includes the fact that the Tribunal found against you and in favour of your former employers in July 2007. In addition to this, you have also indicated that appeals to the Employment Tribunal in 2008 and the Court of Session in 2009/2010 were both unsuccessful as were your attempts to refer the matter to European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Constitution. In furtherance to this you have also highlighted the fact that the Tribunal ruled that they " didn't find that Oracle had altered documents".

Inspector Kelly, who dealt with your original request for the police to review your folder of documents, states that he met with your home address on 17 February 2013 where he spoke with you and took possession of your folder of documents for review. He advised me that he reviewed all documents within the folder and although it is extensive in nature, there is no documentation present which contains evidence of any criminality.

Furthermore, Inspector Kelly informed me that he had a further meeting with you on 2 March 2013 where he made you aware of his findings. He also indicated that at that time he addressed issues you raised in respect of your attendance at police offices in the past where you believed you had been provided appropriate advice. He states that at that time you stated that you did not wish to pursue a complaint but you did not agree with his assessment that no crime could be established.

Detective Inspector Wallace, who is an experienced CID officer, has carried out a further review of the documentation contained within the folder. Having completed his examination, Detective Inspector Wallace is firmly of the opinion that there is no evidence available within any of the documents that supports your claims of the crimes mentioned above. Moreover, he has examined the documentation available and has found no evidence either, of fraudulently altered documents, altered evidence or perjury. In addition this officer highlights the fact that the Chairperson has specifically addressed your suggestion that the documents had been fraudulently altered and has recorded that this was totally unfounded on your part.

I would point out that you have indicated that, in your opinion, a number of the company representatives at the Tribunal committed perjury however, Detective inspector Wallace has identified that the Tribunal had actually questioned your credibility during proceedings recording that in their opinion 'Mr McAlpine was evasive under questioning and deemed not to be credible'.

I have considered the findings of Inspector Kelly, Inspector Jones and Detective Inspector Wallace and I have also considered the findings of the Tribunal, Tribunal reviews and a decision by the Court of Session. Having weighed up this information against your allegation that the police have failed to identify and investigate serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, I have found your allegations to be unsubstantiated and accordingly, I do not uphold your complaint.

In addition to this, I have considered the part of your complaint regarding previous advice provided to you by a number of unidentified officers since 2008. I note that on each occasion the officers have taken time to listen to your complaint and have thereafter provided advice which has related to the matter being civil in nature. As the officers you spoke to cannot be identified and I cannot verify when you attended at these offices, I cannot speak to the people concerned.

Having now carried out a review of the circumstances surrounding your complaint, I can fully understand why the officers concerned would have come to the conclusion, based on the information before them at the time that the matter required to be dealt with under the appeals process as everything relates to your grievance with the Employment Tribunal. As a result of this, I also find this area of your complaint to be unsubstantiated and I therefore do not uphold this area of your complaint.

Another matter that has been brought to my intention by Inspector Kelly is that you have recently advised Sheriff Officer's who attended at your home that the matter surrounding previous court decisions are subject to an appeal. I will take this opportunity to clarify that Police Scotland are not carrying out an investigation in relation to an appeal against any Tribunal or Court ruling and this message should not be conveyed to any third parties.

I trust that this information is of assistance to you and addresses the issues you have raised in your complaint.

If you are not satisfied with the way your complaint has been handled, you may write to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC), Second Floor, Hamilton House, Hamilton Business Park, Caird Park, Hamilton, ML3 OQA. If you decide to contact PIRC, you must submit an application form to them within 3 months of the date of his letter; otherwise they may not be able to deal with your complaint.

John Hogg

Chief Inspector

Area Commander

Chapter 10

On 19 September 2013 I received the following email from the Insolvency Service:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Please see attached letter.

Yours Sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

Attached document read:

The Insolvency Service

The Insolvency Service

Redundancy Payments Service

PO Box 15424

Birmingham

B16 6JJ

Your ref:

Our ref: Lynda Jackson

Direct line: 0121 380 3477

e-mail: lynda.jackson@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk

Date: 19th September 2013

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your e-mail of 29th August 2013 requesting information regarding Oracle Corporation UK Ltd.

I appreciate that you do not consider that your request is made under the Freedom of Information Act, however I would advise you that the decision not to provide the information still remains and as previously mentioned you have the right to appeal this decision.

As explained in my letter of 29th August 2013, if you are dissatisfied with the way in which The Insolvency Service has dealt with this request you have the right to ask for a review within two months of the date of this letter. You may do this by writing to FOI/DPA Team, Technical Section, The Insolvency Service, 1 City Walk, Leeds LS11 9DA, or by email to:

FOI@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk

If you disagree with any final decision provided by The Insolvency Service you may refer this matter to the Information Commissioner. He may be contacted at ICO, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF. Generally the Information Commissioner does not accept referrals until a matter has been fully dealt with through The Insolvency Service's own internal complaints procedure as detailed in our leaflet.

Details of the services of the Information Commissioner can be found at:

www.ico.gov.uk

I enclose for your further information a link to our leaflet entitled 'Complaints Procedure' which provides full details of the internal procedures available to you in pursuing this matter with The Insolvency Service. This may be accessed by using the following link:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/insolvency/docs/publication-pdfs/complaints.pdf

Yours Sincerely

Lynda Jackson

Senior Policy Adviser

The next day I received the following email from the website WhatDoTheyKnow:

Mr K McAlpine,

Please click on the link below to confirm your email address.

Then your FOI request to Insolvency Service will be sent.

<link removed>

We will not reveal your email address to anybody unless you or the law tell us to.

the WhatDoTheyKnow team

Three days later I received the following email from the WhatDoTheyKnow website:

You have a new response to the Freedom of Information request 'Oracle Corporation UK Ltd HR1 2008' that you made to Insolvency Service.

To view the response, click on the link below.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/oracle_corporation_uk_ltd_hr1_20#incoming-432096

When you get there, please update the status to say if the response contains any useful information.

Although all responses are automatically published, we depend on you, the original requester, to evaluate them.

the WhatDoTheyKnow team

After receiving this response from the Insolvency Service via the WhatDoTheyKnow website, which effectively refused the Freedom of Information request, I again asked the Insolvency Service to reveal whether or not they had charged Oracle Corporation UK Limited for filing an HR1 form two years late.

Later that day I received another email from the WhatDoTheyKnow website:

You have a new response to the Freedom of Information request 'Oracle Corporation UK Ltd HR1 2008' that you made to Insolvency Service.

To view the response, click on the link below.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/oracle_corporation_uk_ltd_hr1_20#incoming-432523

When you get there, please update the status to say if the response contains any useful information.

Although all responses are automatically published, we depend on you, the original requester, to evaluate them.

the WhatDoTheyKnow team

The next morning I sent the following email to the Barrister James Laddie, who had previous experience of representing a client against Oracle Corporation UK Limited:

Dear Mr Laddie,

I have been involved in a disability discrimination case with Oracle Corporation UK Limited for seven years, from the Employment Tribunal all the way through to the United Nations (UN).

Even although the UN published a judgement in my case stating that they could not hear my case (case "CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011") because the facts of the case were before the entry in to force of the CRPD convention, the very next case they published (case "CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010") had the facts of the case a year earlier than my case, but yet the United Nations accepted this case, facts below:

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

Start of facts of the case: 11 April 2005

First Court Case: 5 August 2005

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 3 May 2008

Last Court Case: 4 February 2009

Result: Admissible (ratione temporis)

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Start of facts of the case: 10 July 2006

First Court Case: 2 July 2007

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 6 September 2009

Last Court Case: 12 February 2010

Result: Inadmissible (ratione temporis)

I have written to the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights pointing out this injustice, and I am still in communication with them at present. It looks like they would accept another communication (appeal) from myself which was slightly different to the original.

If you would like to represent me, and submit a communication (appeal) on my behalf to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with a Disability, then please do not hesitate to contact me asap. This would be a major string to any Barristers bow, as there is no higher than an appeal to the UN.

After the United Nations, there may also be work to come out of this case, depending on the United Nations findings.

The reason why I have contacted you, is your experience with discrimination cases, especially disability, going up against Oracle Corporation UK Limited, among other attributes.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

On 7 October 2013 I sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a completed PIRC application form.

Police Scotland have finished with this complaint, and I now wish the PIRC to investigate this matter.

Because of the October school holidays, I will be unavailable from Friday 11 October 2013 until Sunday 20 October 2013 inclusive, and will reply to any correspondence or requests on Monday 21 October 2013.

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

Attached document read:

PIRC

Police Investigation & Review Commissioner

Application form

Section A - Your details

Completed this section with all my details.

Section B - Your complaint case

Have you complained to the relevant police organisation?

Yes

Which organisation did you complain to?

Police Scotland

Has this organisation finished looking at your complaint?

Yes

Police Complaint Reference Number:

JH/CO/00220/13/UA126/13

Is any other complaint organisation or the Scottish courts dealing with your complaint?

No

Section C – Your complaints

1: Failing to identify and properly investigate the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, despite the overwhelming evidence supplied to the police regarding these crimes.

During early January 2013, I became aware of a news article on the BBC website regarding a manager who had faked two documents at an Employment Tribunal and been sent to prison for 4 months for perverting the course of justice.

This concerned me, as I had tried to report my similar, but much larger case to the Police on three separate occasions, only to be told that it was a civil matter, and the Police could not do anything.

I notice that Chief Inspector Hogg, in his letter to me dated 1 April 2013, has stated:

"I have been advised that on each occasion you and your mother have been informed that no crime had been committed."

This is wrong. I was informed on each occasion that because it was a civil matter, the Police could not do anything. The Police did not look at any of the evidence on these three occasions.

On 23 January 2013, I sent an email to Strathclyde Police contactus email address, complaining about this matter, and asking if someone could look at the evidence.

After a few emails between myself and Professional Standards Complaints Assessment Review, an Inspector Kelly from North Ayrshire Division phone me and picked up my folder of evidence on 17 February 2013.

On 2 March 2013 at 16:15, I had a meeting with Inspector Kelly that lasted 2.5 hours. During this meeting, Inspector Kelly informed me that he could see no evidence that any crimes had been committed. I informed him that I disagreed with these findings, and it was my intention to take the matter to the Police Complaints Commissioner.

Inspector Kelly then phoned me on 6 March 2013 around 10:30am to ask if it was my intention to take this matter to the Police Complaints Commissioner. I informed Inspector Kelly that it was still my intention to take this matter to the Police Complaints Commissioner.

On 17 April 2013 I finally received a letter from John Hogg, Chief Inspector of North Ayrshire, confirming the above, and outlining that these allegations of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud did not constitute criminal offences.

I then tried to report these matters to the Police Complaints Commissioner on 3 May 2013, but was told that the Police had not treated these matters as a complaint, despite the initial email exchange having the subject heading "Formal Complaint (McAlpine)". This is all documented in your reference PIRC/00501/12.

I now had to go back through the whole procedure again.

On 15 May 2013, I sent another email to Police Professional Standards Complaints Assessment Review email address, stating that it had been referred back from Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC), and attaching my PIRC complaint to this email.

After a couple of letters, emails and phone call, I had a meeting with Inspector Jones at Largs Police Station on 6 August 2013. Present at that meeting was myself, Jean McAlpine and Inspector Jones. This meeting started at 10:00am and lasted around 3 hours. During this meeting, Inspector Jones took a statement from me of approximately 9 pages, and I signed all 9 pages at the end. At the end of the meeting, I left a folder of evidence, the same folder of evidence I had left with Inspector Kelly earlier in the year, and it was agreed that this would be passed on to the local CID.

Inspector Jones then phoned me on 14 August 2013 around 3:30pm to state that no crimes had been committed, and that Detective Inspector Wallace from CID was also of the opinion that no crimes had been committed.

On 17 September 2013 I finally received a letter from John Hogg, Chief Inspector of North Ayrshire, confirming the above, and outlining that these allegations of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud did not constitute criminal offences.

I obviously do not agree with the letter from Chief Inspector Hogg. I must also correct five glaring errors:

1.1: "I have dealt with this matter as a non-criminal complaint about the police."

I fail to see how the police could treat this matter as a non-criminal complaint, when I have tried to report serious crimes to the police, and the police are not investigating these crimes. This is a crime in itself.

1.2: "He states that at that time you stated that you did not wish to pursue a complaint...."

This is wrong, the IPCC was the only option open to me if the police could not see any crimes had been committed. Why did I lodge a complaint with the IPCC on 3 May 2013, after waiting around 6 weeks for the final letter from Chief Inspector Hogg if I "did not wish to pursue a complaint"?

1.3: "Another matter that has been brought to my attention by Inspector Kelly is that you have recently advised Sheriff Officer's who attended at your home that the matter surrounding previous court decisions are subject to an appeal. I will take this opportunity to clarify that Police Scotland are not carrying out an investigation in relation to an appeal against any Tribunal or Court ruling and this message should not be conveyed to any third parties."

Again, this is plain wrong. Sheriff Officer's attended my home in 2010, to determine my ability to pay the Court of Session award against me of around £7,000. I informed the Sheriff Officer's that the Court of Session decision was under appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, and whether I should be paying an award which is currently under appeal.

Points 1.2 and 1.3 above are as a result of a police inspector not taking notes, which is disgraceful.

1.4: "In furtherance to this you have also highlighted the fact that the Tribunal ruled that they ".....didn't find that Oracle had altered documents".

Again, this is just plain wrong. In the Employment Tribunal Judgement, at paragraph 181 it clearly states "We also confirm our specific finding that the respondent did not deliberately alter documents in order to advance their case at this Tribunal hearing."

In other words, the Tribunal did find that documents had been altered, just not deliberately, which is totally contradictory to what Chief Inspector Hogg is implying.

I am also that confident that documents have been deliberately altered and fabricated to pervert the course of justice, that I am willing to let a document expert review these documents, and if required, I will pay for this myself.

1.5 "Detective Inspector Wallace has identified that the Tribunal had actually questioned your credibility during proceedings recording that in their opinion 'Mr McAlpine was evasive under questioning and deemed not to be credible'."

Again, this is a completely wrong quotation, because there is no such quote in the judgement. The Tribunal did not question my credibility during proceedings, there were four witnesses present with notes taken which will testify to that, and he has given a wrong quotation from the contentious 'Credibility' section of the judgement. I have never met nor had an opportunity to speak to or to be questioned by Detective Inspector Wallace and yet I have no recourse to challenge this or his opinion "that there is no evidence available within any of the documents that supports your claims of the crimes mentioned above." "

The investigating officers and the Chief Inspector have referred repeatedly to the judgement of the civil court and have never given any reasons on where the evidence of criminality I have submitted in great detail has failed to convince them, despite me writing to Inspector Hogg to supply individual reasons why each crime was not investigated.

I believe that the evidence I have does constitute the crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, and I have uploaded all the evidence presented to the police to the password protected website:

<internet address, login and password removed>

I also have the original folder handed to the police if you prefer to work with the lever arch folder.

In order to resolve this complaint, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner is going to have to determine whether the evidence presented by myself does, or does not, constitute any of the crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and/or fraud.

2: When trying to report these crimes at various police offices, being repeatedly told that because it was a civil matter the police could not investigate it.

From approximately 2008 to 2013, I have tried to report these crimes to the police on four separate occasions. On three of these occasions Officers told me that because it was a civil matter the police could not investigate the matter. It was only when I learned on the Internet that a manager had been convicted of perverting the course of justice because he altered a couple of documents, that I realised that the information the police had told me was incorrect, as this was a civil matter that was investigated, and someone had been brought to justice.

In order to resolve this complaint, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner is going to have to change the police perception. Crimes can be committed in the civil justice system, but this is not a perception that the police have at present.

As a taxpayer and member of the public, I am utterly shocked at the misconduct in public office, when the police are presented with such overwhelming evidence of the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, and still maintain that no crimes have been committed.

The definition of misconduct in public office is "when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office". The police are funded by the taxpayer and are public servants with a duty to uphold the law.

For the above reasons, I believe it is in the public interest for the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner to investigate this matter.

Signed and dated.

Around 11 October 2013 I received the following letter from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 OQA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

09 October 2013

PIRC/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your application regarding your complaint about Police Scotland. I am writing to advise that I have now written to Police Scotland asking it to provide me with the papers it holds in relation to your case.

I will let you know when I have received these papers.

Yours sincerely

Ms J Rennie

Corporate Services Team

On 11 October 2013 I received the following email from Carol Miers, an investigative journalist:

Hello

Is it Mr McAlpine?

I am working with Help me investigate Welfare and I wanted to ask you more about the disability discrimination case you said needs investigating?

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/oracle_corporation_uk_ltd_hr1_20#outgoing-301486

Perhaps you can tell me more about the background to your case, maybe we could speak on the phone?

Regards

Carol

Later that day I sent the following email to Carol Miers:

Carol,

I am just about to go away for the week (October school holidays), but I will contact you on Monday 21 October 2013, if that's ok.

The what do they know request is to confirm that there was no collective redundancy by Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in 2006, in which case their whole case is a fraud and has perverted the course of justice.

Contact you in just over a week.

Thanks,

Kenneth

Ten days passed before I sent another email to Carol Miers::

Dear Carol,

Are you still interested in investigating this case?

If you are, then we can either do this via email, or you can call me on <telephone number removed>.

Thanks,

Kenneth

Later that morning I received the following email reply from Carol Miers:

Hi

Yes, I am. I am busy today but tomorrow afternoon or Wednesday.

What sort of time suit you?

Carol

I immediately replied to Carol Miers with the following email:

Dear Carol,

Anytime on Wednesday would suit.

Regards,

Kenneth

Later that day I received the following email from the WhatDoTheyKnow website:

You have a new response to the Freedom of Information request 'Oracle Corporation UK Ltd HR1 2008' that you made to Insolvency Service.

To view the response, click on the link below.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/oracle_corporation_uk_ltd_hr1_20#incoming-441828

When you get there, please update the status to say if the response contains any useful information.

Although all responses are automatically published, we depend on you, the original requester, to evaluate them.

the WhatDoTheyKnow team

This was a letter from the Insolvency Service which contained a summary of the history of the previous Freedom of Information requests, but did not explain why the Insolvency Service had accepted an HR1 form two years late, and did not explain if Oracle Corporation UK Limited had been prosecuted.

On 23 October 2013 I received the following email from Carol Miers:

Hi Kenneth

I am sorry I have been held up with events so it may be tomorrow now?

Carol

I immediately sent Carol Miers the following email reply:

Hi Carol,

Tomorrow anytime is fine.

Kenneth

Around 25 October 2013 I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 OQA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

23 October 2013

PIRC/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

I write to advise that we have received the case papers in relation to your complaint about Strathclyde Police.

Your case will shortly be allocated to a review officer and a decision taken as to whether the PIRC is able to conduct a review of your case. The review officer will write to you shortly in this connection. Once your case is allocated, the review officer will be your point of contact within the PIRC.

Yours sincerely

Ms J Millar

Corporate Services Team

Around 2 November 2013 I received the following letter from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 OQA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

31 October 2013

PCCS/00501/12

Dear Mr Kenneth McAlpine

I refer to your complaints about Strathclyde Police and write to advise that your case has now been allocated to me. From now on I will be your point of contact within this office.

Over the coming weeks I will examine the papers provided by you and Strathclyde Police. My first task is to determine whether the PIRC has the power to consider your complaints and I will let you know our decision on this as soon as possible, in any case within the next 28 days.

If the PIRC has the power to consider your case I will write to you to confirm the complaints that you wish to have considered. These will form the basis of the review.

My findings will be considered by a senior member of staff and thereafter discussed at a case conference. We aim to deal with cases at case conference within six months from the date on which an application was received i.e. in your case by 11/04/2014.

During the course of any review you will be regularly updated on our progress.

Yours sincerely

Ms A Mitchell

Review Officer

Around 7 November 2013 I received the following letter from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 OQA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

05 November 2013

PCCS/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

Complaint about Strathclyde Police

I have now completed my initial examination of the papers in your case and have identified what I believe to be your grounds of complaint, known as heads of complaint. I have listed these below.

The heads of complaint are a summary of the complaints you have made and are not intended to reflect every detail of your concerns. They will form the basis of the review of your case and the report that will eventually be issued.

The following heads of complaint been identified:

* That the police failed to identify and investigated crimes that you reported to them;

* That when you tried to report these crimes at various police offices you were incorrectly told that they were a civil matter and the police could not investigate them.

Please contact me within 14 days of the date of this letter if you have any issues regarding the way I have described your complaints. If I do not hear from you within that timescale, the review will proceed on the basis of the complaints listed.

I also write to inform you that we may publish reviews on our website. If your case is being published we will advise you accordingly. However, in order to protect the identities of those involved, we do not publish the names or other personal information of complainers, police officers or third parties. In other words, if we do decide to publish the review in your own case you will not be identified in the report.

Yours sincerely

Ms A Mitchell

Review Officer

On 7 November 2013 I sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 5 November 2013.

In this letter you have asked me to review your heads of complaint, and get back to you if I have any issues regarding the way you have described my complaints.

I have now reviewed the way you have described my complaints, and would kindly ask that you do not reword my complaints, and reinstate the wording of my two complaints exactly the way they were worded in my initial complaint, ie:

Remove your head of complaint wording:

"* That the police failed to identify and investigated crimes that you reported to them;

* That when you tried to report these crimes at various police offices you were incorrectly told that they were a civil matter and the police could not investigate them."

Replace with my original complaint wording:

"* Failing to identify and properly investigate the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, despite the overwhelming evidence supplied to the police regarding these crimes.

* When trying to report these crimes at various police offices, being repeatedly told that because it was a civil matter the police could not investigate it."

I do not want the wording of the complaint to allow the police to have the ability to say that they 'investigated' these crimes by taking possession of the evidence and passing it to CID, when the simple fact was that they didn't identify one single crime, and didn't properly investigate any of these crimes despite the overwhelming evidence supplied to the police regarding these crimes.

I also do not believe that these matters should be conducted as a review, because, if it is found that the overwhelming evidence supplied to the police are crimes, it becomes a very serious case.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find e-mail response from your Review Officer noted below.

In order to ensure our records are accurate, could you please confirm your preferred contact e-mail address as we have received correspondence from you using two different e-mail accounts.

Kind regards

Lynn McCord

Admin Officer

From: Mitchell A (Amanda)

Sent: 08 November 2013 13:41

To: PIRC Enquiries (Public)

Subject:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your email.

You have stated that you do not think this should be conducted as a review and I would like to clarify the role of the PIRC. The PIRC considers complaints about the way a police organisation responded to a complaint about how it delivered a policing service.

There are four possible outcomes to a review:

* The handling of the complaint is considered reasonable;

* The handling of your complaint is not considered to be reasonable. For example, an apology may be recommended or the recording of a complaint amended;

* Issuing of a reconsideration direction. This means that the PIRC has concluded that your complaint must be looked at again in full;

* Learning points. For example, we may point to aspects of the complaint handling which we believe could have been improved, without going so far as making a recommendation.

Can you please confirm if you would still like me to review the way your complaint was handled?

Regards

Amanda Mitchell

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Later that day I sent the following email reply to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

My preferred contact email address is <email address removed>, apologies for any confusion, but I do have another email address I sometimes use.

Regarding your question concerning whether I would like the PIRC to review my complaint, it is my understanding from your website:

"What we can't do

The PIRC does not have the remit to consider complaints which suggest that a police officer, civilian staff member or police organisation has committed a crime. These complaints will be dealt with by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS)."

Because I reported serious crimes to the police with overwhelming evidence supporting these crimes, and the police have ignored these crimes, it would be my understanding that this in itself is a serious crime, is this correct?

If this is correct, it would then be in the remit of the COPFS.

If this is wrong, and it is still within the remit of the PIRC, I would still like the PIRC to look into my case.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Three days later I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that your complaints are within PIRC's remit and I will therefore commence the review of your case.

I have amended the heads of complaint so they now read;

* That the police failed to identify and properly investigate crimes that you reported to them;

* That when you tried to report these crimes at various police offices you were incorrectly told that they were a civil matter and the police could not investigate them.

I will be in touch to update you on the progress of the review.

Many thanks

Amanda Mitchell

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Later that same day I sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Perhaps you did not understand my previous email, when I outlined that I did not want the heads of complaint reworded by the PIRC. Can you please amend the heads of complaint to reflect the complaint that I am making to the PIRC. The heads of complaint should read:

* Failing to identify and properly investigate the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, despite the overwhelming evidence supplied to the police regarding these crimes.

* When trying to report these crimes at various police offices, being repeatedly told that because it was a civil matter the police could not investigate it.

If you do not change the heads of complaint to the exact wording above, I want to know the reasons why you are not changing the heads of complaint to the exact wording above?

Can you also confirm your reason why my complaints are within the remit of the PIRC, and are not within the remit of the COPFS?

I look forward to your two answers.

Regards,

Mr McAlpine

On 12 November 2013 I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your email.

The heads of complaint are a summary of the complaints you have made and are not intended to reflect every detail of your complaint. I can assure you that the finer details of your complaint will be dealt with within the review.

Your complaints are within the remit of PIRC because they are non-criminal complaints against the police. The decision made by the police not to investigate your allegation is not a criminal offence.

Yours sincerely

Amanda Mitchell

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Later that day I sent the following email reply to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email.

Whilst I appreciate that the heads of complaint are a summary, it still does not reflect the seriousness of my complaint against the police. The 'crimes' that you speak of in your summary could refer to a minor crime like dog fouling, so can you at the very least change the first head of complaint to:

"That the police failed to identify and properly investigate serious crimes that you reported to them;"

I have also noted that you have already pre-judged this complaint before you have even started to look at the complaint, by stating that no police officers have committed any criminal offences. The decision made by the police not to investigate my allegation is a criminal offence if the evidence overwhelmingly shows that serious crimes have been committed, and the police have ignored it. The only way you can possibly conduct a review into this complaint, is to judge the evidence put in front of the police, and then judge the police response.

I fail to see how a PIRC review will help in any way whatsoever. the police have already looked at this complaint twice, and failed to identify and properly investigate any serious crimes, the best that a review will do is "Issuing of a reconsideration direction", which is just asking the police to look at this complaint for a third time. An utter waste of everyones time.

Mr McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from Nick Clemson:

Nick Clemson has used WhatDoTheyKnow to send you the message below. Your details, including your email address, have not been given to anyone. If you reply to this message it will go directly to Nick Clemson, who will learn your email address. Only reply if that is okay.

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I noted an FOI request you have made to the Insolvency Service and following my own dreadful treatment by the Service I am keen to make contact with individuals who maybe have suffered similar experiences with them.

If not I apologise for making contact however if you do have information about your own mistreatment by this organisation I would be very keen to discuss this with you.

I have been approached by a BBC Radio 4 programme who are very keen to follow up on the terrible treatment by the Insolvency Service and I would welcome any input you can provide.

Yours,

Nick Clemson

I immediately sent the following email reply to Nick Clemson:

Dear Nick,

Thanks for your email.

I can give you all the input you need, and would be more than willing to go public with it.

I have all the emails to/from Insolvency Service to support this:

To understand the Insolvency Service request I have to go back a bit. In 2006 my employer, a large multinational corporation (Oracle Corporation UK Ltd) made me redundant due to my diabetes (I have this in an email). they hired a large multinational law firm and a Barrister who then went to an Employment Tribunal and stated that Oracle had made 141 employees redundant, thereby getting off with unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

A couple of years later, I then found out that Oracle had not made 141 employees redundant, in fact it may only have been me. I contacted the Insolvency Service who confirmed that they had not received an HR1 from Oracle in 2008 pertaining to redundancies in 2006. I then contacted the multinational law firm early in 2008 to question them about these alleged redundancies. After another couple of years, and a few appeals, I again contacted the Insolvency Service, who then confirmed that they had received an HR1 from Oracle in 2008 regarding redundancies made in 2006, and I asked for a copy of the HR1 which the Insolvency Service supplied.

My beef with the Insolvency Service is three fold:

1: Why did the Insolvency Service accept an HR1 received and dated 2008, for alleged redundancies to be made in 2006 (the name of the HR1 form is ADVANCED NOTIFICATION OF REDUNDANCIES)?

2: Have Oracle Corporation UK Ltd been prosecuted and/or fined for this?

3: Are the Insolvency Service perverting the course of justice by refusing further FOI requests?

I have setup a website to tell my story, although not much on it about the Insolvency Service <website link removed>

My main concern is that they (Insolvency Service, Employment Tribunal and all courts and all ombudsman) are all run by the Government, so they probably cover for each other.

Hope this is helpful, if you require any further help please do not hesitate to contact me. If you have a spare moment, can you tell me your story with the Insolvency Service.

Regards,

Kenneth

I then received the following email reply from Nick Clemson:

Hi Kenneth

Thank you for your prompt reply and although my beef with the service is slightly different (they tried to disqualify me as a director in 2006 based on hearsay from a person who had a vested interest and refused to accept hard evidence provided to them by me and after winning the case hands down I lost my two houses and had to go bankrupt due to the relatively small repayment I received) your mention of perverting the course of justice certainly rings true and the fact that they cover for each other rings true to. I certainly do think there is a thread here that shows systematic negligence which is what the Face the Facts team are after. Would you mind if I discussed your case with the programme producer??

I am in the office today and have a number of meetings but I will look at your link this evening and hope to be back in touch very soon.

Thank again for coming back to me so quickly.

Kind regards

Nick

I quickly received another email from Nick Clemson:

Hi Kenneth

Just a quickie as I have had a very quick look at your site and very interestingly you mention, in the Evidence section, fabrication of evidence and collusion. These are again another two things that I have accused the service of. I think we do need to discuss this further and in the meantime if you do know of any other individuals who have had similar experiences with the IS then please let me know as the more we can get the more likely it is that the BBC will run a programme on it.

Kind regards

Nick

I then sent the following email reply to Nick Clemson:

Dear Nick,

I have no problem with you discussing my case with the programme producer.

Also, if the programme producer wants to email me, i have no problem with that either.

I was sorry to hear about your circumstances, but you did win. I hope you are fighting the repayment you received. I have been fighting my case for seven years. The Employment Tribunal awards a pitance to the general public, however, if you are a lawyer, you can get very large awards, in fact one lawyer claimed £18m, and I believe got most of that, for an annual salary of £140,000, again people looking out for their own.

Thanks,

Kenneth

I then sent another email to Nick Clemson:

Dear Nick,

The collusion was that they had read each others witness statements, and stated in their witness statements that they had read each others witness statements. The Employment Tribunal does not allow a witness to sit in the Tribunal until they have given their evidence, in the interests of justice, so that they cannot hear other witnesses evidence and then just repeat that evidence.

Unfortunately I do not know of any other individuals at the moment, apart from yourself, but I am sure there will be others. You could post a message in some relevant forums that you are looking for people with issues with the IS.

Regards,

Kenneth

I then received the following email from Nick Clemson a couple of hours later:

Hi Kenneth

With regards these forums where do I find these and how do I go about finding them?? If you could point me in the right direction I will happily put up some messages etc.

Kind regards

Nick

Chapter 11

On 13 November 2013 I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I have amended the head of complaint to read:

"That the police failed to identify and properly investigate serious crimes that you reported to them."

The PIRC can only review complaints of a non-criminal nature and we are willing to review this case on this basis. However, if you are insisting that this is criminal neglect of duty then it is open to you to take the matter to the police or COPFS.

Please advise if you wish for me to conduct the review on this basis.

Yours sincerely

Amanda Mitchell

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

I then sent the last email to Nick Clemson:

Dear Nick,

Perform an internet search for "employment forums uk" or "employment tribunal forums uk" (without quotes), then join and post a message stating you are looking for people who have worked for or had experience with the IS.

You could perform other internet searches for "insolvency service" or "HR1", etc, to get other forums or websites.

Good luck, let me know how you get on.

Regards,

Kenneth

I quickly received the last email from Nick Clemson:

Thanks Kenneth

That same afternoon I sent the following email reply to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email, and thank you for changing the head of complaint, which I am now happier with.

I thought that the PIRC would refer a case to the COPFS, if they suspected criminal matters such as criminal neglect.

I would be happy for you and the PIRC to proceed with reviewing my complaint, and during the review, if you suspect that crimes have been committed, then refer the complaint to the COPFS.

Regards,

Mr McAlpine

On 2 December 2013 I sent the following email to the investigative journalist Carol Miers:

Hi Carol,

Just thought I would drop you a quick email before Christmas, just to see how you are getting on with the investigation into disability discrimination, and to see if I could help in any way, as I know this case inside out.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/oracle_corporation_uk_ltd_hr1_20#outgoing-301486

If you need any help please contact me via email or phone.

Regards,

Kenneth

Nine days later I sent the following email to the United Nations Enable organisation, the organisation for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities:

Dear Sir/Madam,

How, and who, do I appeal a decision of the UN CRPD Committee?

If I cannot appeal, who do I contact to make them aware of an injustice concerning a decision of the UN CRPD?

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

It was now 2014, and on 6 January 2014 I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent the letter attached in the email below to you on 18 Sep 2013, but I have not yet received a reply.

Can you find out where this letter is in your system, and when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

Later that month I sent another email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your Reference: McAlpine Mr K - 131111 - PCCS/00501/12

I lodged this complaint over 3 months ago and have not received any contact or correspondence from the PIRC for around 2 months.

Bearing in mind that your website states that a review should take 6 months, can you confirm that this review should be finished in April 2014?

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Later that day I sent the following email to Carol Miers, an investigative journalist:

Hi Carol,

You contacted me back in October 2013 regarding investigating a case (see emails below), and I was just wondering how the investigation is going, as I have not heard anything regarding the case.

Thanks,

Kenneth

That same evening I also sent the following email to the website Help Me Investigate:

Dear Paul,

I was in contact with Carol Miers in October 2013, and Carol said that she would investigate this case.

In 2006 I was made redundant by Oracle Corporation UK Ltd. During the Employment Tribunal that followed, I was made aware of emails that stated because I was Diabetic I was going to be offsick a lot in the future and to make me redundant because of this. During the eight years that I had worked for Oracle, I had only taken around 6 days sickness, the average UK employee takes 8 days sickness each year.

Oracle has its European, Middle East and Africa headquarters in the UK, and the UK Government do not want to lose these headquarters to any other country. The UK Government also own and control the Employment Tribunals, Courts and Insolvency Service.

During appeals to higher courts and freedom of information requests, it became apparent that a collective redundancy at Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in 2006 did not take place.

I contacted Oracle Corporation UK Ltd lawyers early in 2008, and stated that the Insolvency Service had not received an HR1 Form concerning the proposed redundancies in 2006. this is required by law, as the UK Government has to be notified of 20 or more redundancies, so that they can help people find work quickly or retrain.

My last freedom of information request is at:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/oracle_corporation_uk_ltd_hr1_20#outgoing-301486

Why should you care?

The UK Government is not releasing information on whether they are upholding the law regarding prosecuting large multinational companies who do not submit an HR1 form before making potential redundancies. Are they prosecuting small UK companies?

Is the Insolvency Service perverting the course of justice by hiding the fact that Oracle Corporation UK Ltd did not have a collective redundancy in 2006, by accepting an HR1 form in 2008, and not prosecuting or releasing information?

If you are interested, email me.

Kenneth

The next day I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your email dated 26 January 2014 and write to advise that a letter was sent to you on 23 December 2013 confirming that your case has now been reallocated to me. A copy of the letter is herewith attached for your information.

You will see from the letter that, although your case has been reallocated, we intend to do everything possible to conclude the review in the timescale previously communicated to you – i.e. by 11 April 2014.

Kind regards

Debbie Maloney

Review Officer

Attached document read:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 0QA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

23 December 2013

PCCS/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to the PIRC's ongoing review of your complaints about Strathclyde Police.

I write to inform you that your case has been reallocated to me. I will now be your point of contact within this office.

I am sorry that we have had to reallocate your case but please be assured that we will do everything possible to conclude the review of your case in the timescale communicated to you previously.

Please let me know if you wish to discuss your case further.

Yours sincerely

Ms D Maloney

Review Officer

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Ms Maloney,

I did not receive your letter dated 23 December 2013.

As I stated to the Police, I am willing to pay for any questioned/fabricated/altered documents to be examined by a document examiner.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

On 30 January 2014 I received the following email reply from the website Help Me Investigate:

Thanks - I'll see if I can find someone who's willing to take this on. It may be a while - and there may not be anyone, but I'll do what I can.

The next email I sent was on 4 March 2014 to the Web Manager at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was on your website, and performed the following search:

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&SymbolNo=CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

This result of the search states that the country is "Algeria". This is wrong. The country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

I trust this will be corrected?

Mr KR McAlpine

Three days later I received the following email from the Web Manager at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Good morning,

The error has been corrected.

Thank you very much for your input.

OHCHR webmabager.

On 10 March 2014 I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find attached letter from your review officer

Kind regards

Lynn McCord

Admin Officer

Attached document read:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 0QA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

10 March 2014

PIRC/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

I write to provide you with an update on the progress of your case.

The initial stage of the review has been concluded and your case will now be considered by senior staff before being discussed at a case conference. At this stage, I am not in a position to tell you precisely when your case will be finalised as there are a number of cases that pre-date your own and which will therefore be considered first. Everything possible will be done to ensure that your case is considered as quickly as possible.

I will continue to update you regularly.

Yours sincerely

Ms D Maloney

Review Officer

The next day I sent the following email reply to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email and attached letter dated 10 March 2014.

In your letter dated 10 March 2014 you have clearly stated that the initial stage of my review (PIRC/00501/12) "has been concluded".

I have a question:

1: In my Application Form to the PIRC, I have clearly stated:

"In order to resolve this complaint, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner is going to have to determine whether the evidence presented by myself does, or does not, constitute any of the crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and/or fraud."

I know for a fact that not one person from the PIRC has reviewed the evidence presented by myself, so how can the PIRC possibly determine whether the Police have dealt with this complaint properly?

Mr K McAlpine

On 19 March 2014 I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a completed complaint form.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

Attached document read:

Human Rights Council

Complaint Procedure Form

I. Information concerning the author (s) of the communication or the alleged victim (s) if other than the author

Completed this section with my details.

II. Information on the State concerned

Name of the State concerned and, as applicable, name of public authorities responsible for the alleged violation(s):

Either The United Nations or Switzerland or the individual countries of the members of the CRPD Committee in CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011. State(s) to be decided by Human Rights Council.

III. Facts of the complaint and nature of the alleged violation(s)

The complaint procedure addresses consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances.

Please detail, in chronological order, the facts and circumstances of the alleged violations including dates, places and alleged perpetrators and how you consider that the facts and circumstances described violate your rights or that of the concerned person(s).

1. Introduction

This communication does not contain human rights abuses that have any threat to life or physical abuse, so please treat this communication as a non-urgent communication.

"All victims of human rights abuses should be able to look to the Human Rights Council as a forum and a springboard for action."

\- Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General, 12 March 2007, Opening of the 4th Human Rights Council Session

Human Rights Council Complaint Procedure

What are the criteria for a communication to be accepted for examination?

A communication related to a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms is admissible, provided that:

1.1: It is not manifestly politically motivated and its object is consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other applicable instruments in the field of human rights law;

This communication is not manifestly politically motivated, and its object is consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

1.2: It gives a factual description of the alleged violations, including the rights which are alleged to be violated;

I believe that this communication gives a factual description of alleged violations, as well as the rights alleged to have been violated.

1.3: Its language is not abusive. However, such a communication may be considered if it meets the other criteria for admissibility after deletion of the abusive language;

Any language used in this communication is not abusive.

1.4: It is submitted by a person or a group of persons claiming to be the victims of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, or by any person or group of persons, including non-governmental organizations, acting in good faith in accordance with the principles of human rights, not resorting to politically motivated stands contrary to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and claiming to have direct and reliable knowledge of the violations concerned. Nonetheless, reliably attested communications shall not be inadmissible solely because the knowledge of the individual authors is second-hand, provided that they are accompanied by clear evidence;

I am the victim of the alleged violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms contained within this communication.

1.5: It is not exclusively based on reports disseminated by mass media;

Nothing in this communication is based on any reports disseminated by mass media.

1.6: It does not refer to a case that appears to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights already being dealt with by a special procedure, a treaty body or other United Nations or similar regional complaints procedure in the field of human rights;

This communication is a new case that has not, and is not being dealt with by a special procedure, a treaty body or other United Nations or similar regional complaints procedure in the field of human rights.

1.7: Domestic remedies have been exhausted, unless it appears that such remedies would be ineffective or unreasonably prolonged.

All domestic remedies were exhausted in both CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 and CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010, which are the subject of this communication.

However, such domestic remedies do not seem to be relevant for the subject matter of this communication. In the document "FAQs_HRC" it states under the frequently asked question "What events are considered as consistent patterns of gross human rights violations?" and goes on to state that these human rights violations can "no longer [be] regarded as falling exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of States.", which I believe accurately describes the jurisdiction of this communication.

2. Document Title CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Document CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 is a United Nations document available on the UN website.

Start of facts of the case: 10 July 2006

First Court Case: 2 July 2007

Last Court Case: 12 February 2010

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 6 September 2009

Result: Inadmissable

The Judgement states:

"6.4 The Committee considers that, in accordance with article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol, it may not examine alleged violations of the Convention that occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, in the present case on 6 September 2009, unless the facts continued after that date."

3. Document Title CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

Document CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 is a United Nations document available on the UN website.

Start of facts of the case: 11 April 2005

First Court Case: 5 August 2005

Last Court Case: 4 February 2009

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 3 May 2008

Result: Admissable

The Judgement states:

"8.2 The Committee notes that the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 3 May 2008 and that the judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 4 February 2009, was delivered after that date. The Committee also notes that the State party does not challenge the admissibility of the present communication and that the relevant facts, which are the subject of the communication – inaccessibility of the banking card services provided by the ATMs operated by OTP for the authors – continued after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded, by article 2 (f) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication."

4. CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 and CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 and CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010, when compared, are quite simply a disgrace to justice.

How can CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 be accepted, when the last court case judgment (4 February 2009) was after the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party (3 May 2008), and CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 was NOT accepted, when the last court case judgment (12 February 2010) was after the Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party (6 September 2009)?

In both CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 and CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010, the decisions of the higher courts did not overturn the original decisions, and therefore can only be viewed as affirmations of the original decisions.

5. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

As has been explained in section 2, 3 and 4, I have not had a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal when CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 is not precluded by article 2 (f) of the CRPD Optional Protocol, and is accepted, and CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 is precluded by article 2 (f) of the CRPD Optional Protocol, and is not accepted.

6. Further communication with Registry and Ibrahim Salama

Over the last year and a half, I have written various letters to the Registry and received replies from Ibrahim Salama, initially complaining why CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 was deemed inadmissible when there was a high court judgment after the Optional Protocol entered into force, and then my utter anger when CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 was accepted because there was a high court judgment after the Optional Protocol entered into force.

Nothing has been done with regards to this disgrace to justice, and it has been six months since my last correspondence, and I am still awaiting a reply.

7. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

As has been explained in section 6, despite numerous correspondence setting out injustices, I am not equal before the law and have not received equal protection of the law when CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 is still not precluded by article 2 (f) of the CRPD Optional Protocol, and is accepted, and CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 is still precluded by article 2 (f) of the CRPD Optional Protocol, and is not accepted.

8. Algeria

Please refer to the screen prints at the end of this document.

The judgment of my communication to the CRPD (CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011) was published on 13 November 2012.

When I started to write this communication on 4 March 2014 to the HRC, I looked up the judgment (CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011) on the UN OHCHR website, and to my absolute horror found that it was listed under Country "Algeria", Geographic Region "Middle East and North Africa".

The judgment (CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011) clearly states that the Country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", Geographic Region "Europe and Central Asia".

I firmly believe that when taken in conjunction with the previous seven sections, this is not an 'accident', 'error' or 'mistake', but an attempt to bury this judgment from western human rights organisations and media.

9. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."

Whilst I have not been officially deprived of my nationality, in the eyes of certain people viewing or searching for judgments from "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or judgments from "Europe and Central Asia", I have been arbitrarily deprived of my nationality.

I have emailed the UN Webmaster and the Country has now been changed to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

I simply want justice, nothing else.

IV. Exhaustion of domestic remedies

1- Steps taken by or on behalf of the alleged victim(s) to exhaust domestic remedies- please provide details on the procedures which have been pursued, including recourse to the courts and other public authorities as well as national human rights institutions, the claims made, at which times, and what the outcome was:

All domestic remedies have been exhausted where appropriate.

2- If domestic remedies have not been exhausted on grounds that their application would be ineffective or unreasonably prolonged, please explain the reasons in detail:

Not applicable.

V. Submission of communication to other human rights bodies

1- Have you already submitted the same matter to a special procedure, a treaty body or other United Nations or similar regional complaint procedures in the field of human rights?

This particular matter has not been submitted to any other body or procedure.

2- If so, detail which procedure has been, or is being pursued, which claims have been made, at which times, and the current status of the complaint before this body:

Not applicable.

The next day I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Good afternoon,

Please find attached correspondence from your Review Officer.

Regards

Ms J Millar

Corporate Services Team

Attached document read:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 0QA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

20 March 2014

PIRC/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your email dated 11 March 2014 in which you raised a concern about documentary evidence not having been obtained and examined.

The review officer who carried out the initial work on your case has now left PIRC. However, as previously advised, your case has been passed to senior staff for their consideration. This second stage is part of our quality assurance process and involves a senior staff member checking the work carried out by the review officer. I have discussed your email with one of the senior staff members and I can assure you that the concern you have raised will be taken into account when your case is examined.

As you know, we deal with cases on a chronological basis and there are currently a number of cases which pre-date your own. I can confirm, however, that senior staff expect to be in a position to consider your case within the next 4 to 5 weeks.

I will revert to you once your case has been looked at by a senior staff member.

Yours sincerely

Ms D Maloney

Review Officer

On 1 May 2014 I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find attached letter from your review officer

King regards

Lynn McCord

Admin Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Attached document read:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 0QA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

1 May 2014

PCCS/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to my previous letter advising that senior staff expected to be in a position to examine your case within 4 to 5 weeks. Unfortunately, due to the volume and nature of the cases that pre-date your own, that timescale has not been met.

I am not in a position at this stage to tell you precisely when your case will be considered, but I will keep you updated regularly on our progress.

Yours sincerely

Ms D Maloney

Review Officer

Twelve days later I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent the letter attached in the email below to you on 18 Sep 2013 and 6 Jan 2014, but I have not yet received a reply.

Can you find out where this letter is in your system, and when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

Five days later I sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am now extremely concerned at the amount of time that this case has taken.

Can you give me a brief update on the following:

Has work started on my case?

If work has started on my case, has work finished on my case?

Is my case just waiting to be reviewed by senior staff?

Mr K McAlpine

Two days later I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your email dated 18 May 2014. As previously advised, your case was in a queue waiting to be considered by senior staff following the initial stage of the review having been completed by my former colleague. I had intended to write to you this week with a further update on the progress of your case. It is now anticipated that your case will be looked at by senior staff within the next 7 days and then discussed at a case conference on 29 May 2014.

Yours sincerely

Debbie Maloney

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Around 22 May 2014 I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

Palais des Nations

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

REFERENCE: G/S0 214/48 GBR (GEN)

CE/APP/mbe 6/2011

20 May 2014

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 14 May 2014. In this message, you raise various questions as to the way to submit a new individual complaint to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The admissibility of a complaint that you would submit to the Committee based only on the Court of Session judgment issued on 12 February 2010 cannot be assessed in general terms, but should be determined after a thorough analysis of each element of your complaint. In any event, please note that any new complaint submitted to the Committee should refer to facts that were not the subject of your previous communication and that occurred after the entry into force of the Convention in the United Kingdom.

Yours sincerely,

Ibrahim Salama

Director

Human Rights Treaties Division

On 22 May 2014 I sent the following email to The Harvard Law School Project on Disability (HPOD) that works to promote the human rights of people with disabilities worldwide:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am hoping that you can help me.

In 2011 I submitted a communication to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011). I had to represent myself as I did not qualify for legal aid, but could not afford legal representation. In 2012, the Committee rejected the communication 'ratione temporis', despite the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) coming into force in the UK on 6 September 2009, but the last UK judgement being dated 12 February 2010.

My judgement can be found here:

http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhssZgG1cirxFSn1tuVSTXtXKSEmbEG8B4KCE%2bUyAk7RFFB0nF7%2bpzLniUqhQkFx8Hg%2fm39Jwhh6WDIh5y%2bkRTogLUYftcHs%2brZtVYJ5EZQm%2bh

At the next session of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Committee accepted UN Communication Number CRPD/C/9/D/2010 'ratione temporis', despite all the relevant dates being earlier than my dates, refer to table below:

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Start of facts of the case: 10 July 2006

First Court Case: 2 July 2007

Last Court Case: 12 February 2010

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 6 September 2009

Result: Inadmissable

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

Start of facts of the case: 11 April 2005

First Court Case: 5 August 2005

Last Court Case: 4 February 2009

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 3 May 2008

Result: Admissable

I have complained to the UN CRPD Committee, but nothing has been done. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has recently sent me an email stating that I can submit a new communication to the UN CRPD Committee, and this is where I was hoping that you could help me please.

If you can help me in any way, please let me know as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

On 1 June 2014 I sent the following email to the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a graduate of the University and I am looking for help regarding a legal matter, and was wondering if I could make an appointment to see someone, or if it is easier, I could receive help via email.

Can someone email me back regarding help, or an appointment.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

I immediately received the following automated email reply from the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

I am on annual leave until 24th June 2014. I will not be responding to emails so please contact me again after that date.

That same afternoon I received another similar email from the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

I will be out of the office until Tuesday 3rd June 2014. For any urgent enquiries please call 0141 548 5995 and leave a message, or email enquiries@lawclinic.org.uk and I will get back to you on my return.

Kind regards

Diane

The next day I received the following email from the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thank you for your enquiry.

The University of Strathclyde Law Clinic is non-profit organisation providing free legal advice and assistance to those who have no access to professional legal assistance. It is run by law students, under the management of the Clinic Director, Professor Nicolson, who whilst not legally qualified, does have considerable experience in operating Law Clinics. Additional supervision is given by those with experience as solicitors but who do not currently hold practising certificates.

Although we endeavour to ensure the best possible advice and assistance, we ask you to note that such advice and assistance is not equivalent to that given by a professionally qualified practising lawyer. Moreover, we do not accept liability for any advice, information or assistance given by any student member, staff adviser, or by anyone acting on behalf of the Law Clinic or purporting to do so.

We do not provide advice to persons who would qualify for legal aid to fund professional representation or those who could afford to pay for a solicitor. If you feel that you may fit our client profile , please call 0141 548 5995 and, subject to you meeting our financial criteria, we may well be able to assist.

In addition, we have our Initial Advice Clinic (IAC) on Wednesday 4th June 2014 in the Mitchell Library from 6pm-7:30pm. This would be an opportunity for you to attend and get some advice from a trainee or qualified solicitor.

Kind regards,

Jacob Hay

University of Strathclyde Law Clinic

A couple of days later I sent the following email reply to the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email.

I will be unable to attend the IAC later on today, as my wife is working until 8pm today, and I have two children to look after.

It sounds like you have to determine whether I fit the financial criteria before we can proceed, so can I suggest that if there is a form or online form I have to complete, that you email me the form or website address, and I can fill out the form in the next couple of days.

Once you have determined whether you can help me, I can attend a future IAC, or we can arrange a meeting.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

I quickly received the following email reply from the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

Dear Mr McAlpine

We only go through financial details if we are to take you as a client here at the Law Clinic. We do not means test for our IAC sessions. We run our IAC sessions the first Wednesday of every month at the Mitchell Library, and also on the third Monday of every month here at the University (Law School, Level 7, Graham Hills Building). The sessions run from 6pm \- 7.30pm.

I do not have a form I can send you, we only go through a few questions which I can do by telephone if you want to call me on 0141 548 5995.

(I also wish to let you know that there are some legal issues that we are unable to deal with as we are a student run organisation and have limited resources.)

Kind regards

Diane

I immediately sent the following email reply to the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

Diane,

Thank you for your last email, and our chat on the phone earlier today.

Please find a brief summary of my case below:

I was born on 12 August 1964. I have Type 1 Diabetes, and have had this condition since 1966.

I was made redundant from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in 2006, after working for the company for eight years. The redundancy was sudden and completely unexpected, and I was the 7th longest serving employee in a team of 14 employees all performing the same role, Service Delivery Manager, in fact my job title, with hard factual evidence, was "Service Delivery Manager".

I had grave suspicions about the whole redundancy, and decided to take the company to an Employment Tribunal. During evidence discovery, I was given an email discussion between my manager and HR which stated that because of my diabetes, I was going to have prolonged periods of time off due to illness, and that I should be made redundant. The following email from a Senior HR Manager, stated that because I was going to be off sick alot in the future, to make me redundant. I was made redundant the following month. I had taken 2 days sickness absence in the previous 18 months, the average UK employee takes 8 days sickness absence a year. The company admitted that they hadn't even checked my attendance records.

This tribunal took place in July 2007, where the company was represented by London Barristers and a multinational legal company. This team 'invented' a story that there had been a collective redundancy in 2006 at Oracle Corporation (this has now proved to be untrue), and that I was made redundant due to a collective redundancy, rather than disability discrimination. My case has always been that there was two direct disability discriminations which took place, the first one being the stereotypical assumption that diabetes equals future sickness absence, and the second one being that I was made redundant solely because of my diabetes. The tribunal ruled against me, and Oracle Corporation UK Ltd won the whole case, and was awarded £3,700.00 in costs despite claiming for £117,000.00.

This case then split into three cases at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, a reasonable adjustments appeal, a disability discrimination appeal, and a costs appeal. I was represented by a pro-bono Solicitor from Glasgow for the reasonable adjustments appeal and the disability discrimination appeal. All three cases were lost at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

I then took the disability discrimination case to the Court of Session myself, and the Court of Session heard the appeal over three hearings and a decision against me was made in early 2010. Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, represented by an Advocate at the Court of Session appeal hearings, claimed for costs, and were awarded approximately £7,000.

I tried to take the case to the UK Supreme Court in 2010, but they stated in an email that they had no jurisdiction.

I then took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, and a single judge from Malta threw the application out.

I then took the case to the United Nations, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), who threw the case out 'ratione temporis' (facts occurred prior to the CRPD coming into force in the UK) despite the Court of Session judgement being after the CRPD came into force in the UK, and it being an ongoing situation, ie: UK have not found disability discrimination. I have complained to the UN, and they have stated in writing that I, or someone representing me, can submit another communication (appeal) to them.

That is where I am at the moment.

I will not stop fighting this case, as stating that diabetes will result in future sickness absence is disability discrimination, and it is not negated by an alledged redundancy. It is also an injustice for a large employer to turn up at an Employment Tribunal and 'invent' a collective redundancy, commit perjury, alter and fabricate evidence, and pervert the course of justice.

The possible options that I do have are a judicial review in this country, and another United Nations communication (appeal).

I also believe that this case would prove very interesting to an Investigative Journalism course.

Any help that you could provide would be greatly appreciated, as I only have myself at the moment.

ps: Most of the information and evidence can be found on the website

<internet address removed>

Thanks,

Kenneth

The next day I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to my previous email and write to advise that your case has now been considered by a senior staff member and he has instructed that I contact you to obtain the lever arch folder you gave the police to examine. I would be grateful if you would therefore arrange to forward this to us at your earliest convenience.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Debbie Maloney

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Debbie,

I am in your area at the weekend, so I could either drop the folder in at your office on Saturday, 7 June 2014, morning, or I can arrange that one of my parents drop it in at your office on Monday, 9 June 2014.

Who should I make the folder for the attention of, or should I just mark it with the PIRC number?

Regards,

Mr McAlpine

The last email I received that day was from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

The office is closed on Saturday so it would be better if one of your parents brings the folder in on Monday morning. Please mark it for my attention. I will be in the office from 9 am on Monday.

Regards

Debbie Maloney

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

The next day I received the following email from the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Thank you for your email.

I have spoken to one of our supervisors and unfortunately your enquiry is beyond the capability of our law students to deal with.

She has suggested that you may wish to approach the Equality and Human Rights Commission to see if they can help.

I hope this has been useful, and sorry that we are unable to help you further.

Kind regards

Diane Inglis

Administrator

University of Strathclyde Law Clinic

I immediately replied to this email with the following email to the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

Diane,

Thank you for your reply.

I contacted the Equality and Human Rights Commission as far back as 2008, but they were unable to help.

I am disappointed that you are unable to help, because the United Nations appeal can be done by myself, so I am quite sure that one of your law students, or a FRU Advocate could do this quickly and easily, and be much better than me in doing it. The same could also apply to a Judicial Review.

I would be grateful if you could pass this onto a contact at the University in the Investigative Journalism course to see if one of their students could help investigate this injustice.

Thanks,

Kenneth

On 11 June 2014 I received the following email from the University of Strathclyde Law Clinic:

Dear McAlpine

We appreciate that you are disappointed, but we have limited resources and are not in a position to help in a case of this nature.

We would suggest that you contact the Department of Journalism as we do not know whether they would be in a position to help or not.

Kind regards

Diane Inglis

Administrator

University of Strathclyde Law Clinic

Eight days later I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has been three months since I sent you a completed complaint form via email, and I have not had any correspondence whether you have received the complaint form, or any correspondence regarding the progress of the complaint.

Can you send me an update please.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to previous correspondence and write to provide you with an update on the progress of your case. It is anticipated that your case will be discussed at a case conference next week. I will revert to you in the week commencing 7th July to advise when we anticipate issuing the review report.

In the meantime, I note that you have stated on a number of occasions that you are willing to pay for a document examiner to consider the documents you provided to the police. It is not clear whether you intend to do this or whether you are requesting that we do so. I should point out that it is not part of our remit to do this. The PIRC in its review function reviews the way in which the police deal with complaints and this does not involve carrying out the type of enquiry you have suggested. It is of course open to you to instruct a document expert if you choose to do so.

Kind regards

Debbie Maloney

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Chapter 12

On 9 July 2014 I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Good morning

Please find attached our Complaint Handling Review and letter from the Commissioner in respect of your complaint.

Kind regards

Lynn McCord

Admin Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

First attached letter read:

PIRC

Professor John McNeill

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 0QA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

08 July 2014

PCCS/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your complaints about Police Scotland and enclose the report of my complaint handling review of your case. The report sets out my views on Police Scotland's handling of your complaints.

In accordance with my normal practice, the report has been anonymised in order to protect the identities of the individuals involved (including yourself). We explained in our letter dated 5 November 2013 that reports may be published on my office's website. Your case will be published and this will take place after close of business on 10 July 2014.

As you will see I have made a single recommendation in my report. Although my review of your case is now complete, I will be taking steps to ensure that my recommendation is implemented by Police Scotland.

Yours sincerely

John McNeill

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Second attached letter read:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Case reference: PIRC/00501/12

July 2014

Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

under section 35(1) of the Police Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006

Summary and Key Findings

The complaints in this case arose as a consequence of the applicant's allegations that criminal offences had been committed by staff of his former employer in connection with the applicant's case against the employer at an employment tribunal.

Of the two complaints considered, it was found that neither was dealt with to a reasonable standard. A single recommendation was made.

The role of PIRC

One of the roles performed by the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner ("the Commissioner") is to examine the way in which the police deal with particular kinds of complaints. In performing this role, the Commissioner obtains information about the complaint from the policing body against whom the complaint was made. This information is considered together with information provided by the person who made the complaint ("the applicant"). An assessment is then made as to whether in all the circumstances the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. Among the factors which are taken into account when making this assessment are the following:

* whether the policing body's response to the complaint is supported by all material information available;

* whether in dealing with the complaint the policing body has adhered to all relevant policies, procedures and legal provisions;

* whether sufficient enquiries into the complaint have been carried out by the policing body; and

* where the complaint has resulted in the policing body identifying measures necessary to improve its service, whether these measures are adequate and have been implemented;

* whether the policing body's response to the complaint is adequately reasoned.

Background

The applicant was made redundant by his employer in or around June 2006 and presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal Service on 25 August 2006, claiming that his dismissal had been unfair and that he had been discriminated against on the ground of disability. The applicant represented himself at the tribunal. The tribunal issued a judgement in September 2007 dismissing the applicant's claims. The applicant was unsuccessful in his subsequent appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Session.

The employment tribunal also considered an allegation by the applicant that documents had been deliberately altered by his employer to gain an advantage in the case. The tribunal concluded that the allegation was unfounded and that the employer had not deliberately altered, amended or removed documentation from the bundle of productions, in order to improve its case.

The applicant believed that criminal offences had been committed during the employment tribunal proceedings and, according to him, he attempted to report these to the police on a number of occasions. The applicant does not recall the specific dates on which these attempts were made, but claims that he was told that the matter was civil in nature and that consequently no one examined the evidence he held which he believed supported his allegations.

On 23 January 2013, the applicant sent an email to Strathclyde Police's Professional Standards Department complaining about how the police had dealt with his allegations. The email was deemed initially not to constitute a complaint about the police, but rather concerned "an operational policing matter". The applicant requested in his email that someone look at the documentation which he believed supported his allegations. According to the police, the applicant confirmed during a phone call on 5 March 2013 that he did not wish to pursue a complaint at that time in connection with his attempts to report the alleged offences. The applicant disputes this.

Inspector A was appointed to make enquiries into the alleged offences and on 17 February 2013 he obtained from the applicant a folder containing the applicant's supporting documentation. Inspector A met with the applicant on 2 March 2013 and advised him that he had examined the contents of the folder and could find no evidence of criminal activity. According to Inspector A, he arranged for Inspector B to carry out a review of the information provided by the applicant and he too reached the conclusion that no evidence of a crime existed. A letter was thereafter sent to the applicant by Chief Inspector C on 1 April 2013 advising that the folder contained "nothing of evidential value which would substantiate a crime" and that the allegations "do not constitute criminal offences".

Subsequently, the Commissioner's office received an application from the applicant to review the handling of his complaint about the police. However as the matter had not been dealt with by the police as a complaint, the applicant was advised that the Commissioner had no remit in the case.

On 15 May 2013, the applicant contacted the police again and requested that the case be investigated as a complaint. Inspector D was appointed to make enquiries and on 6 August 2013 he obtained a statement from the applicant. Chief Inspector B also instructed Detective Inspector E to carry out a further review of the contents of the folder which the applicant had provided.

Chief Inspector C responded to the applicant's complaints by letter dated 17 September 2013.

The Complaints

The following complaints have been identified:

(1) that the police failed to identify and properly investigate serious crimes that were reported to them; and

(2) that when the applicant tried to report crimes at various police offices he was incorrectly told that they were a civil matter and the police could not investigate them.

The Review

This section sets out the Commissioner's views on the manner in which the complaints were handled by Police Scotland.

Complaint 1: Alleged failure to identify and investigate reported crimes

The applicant's complaint was noted as follows in the statement he provided to the police on 6 August 2013:

"Despite repeated attempts to report the matters of failing to identify and properly investigate the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud to the police, they have failed to investigate the matters arising from the employment tribunal."

Internal Handling

Chief Inspector C provided the following response:

"As you are also aware, I have previously corresponded with you by letter after you had requested a review of a folder of documents which you claimed included evidence of the aforementioned crimes. On this occasion the documents were reviewed by an experienced police Inspector and no evidence of criminality was found. You were subsequently advised of this in the aforesaid correspondence.

I have however instructed that a further investigation be carried out in respect of your contact with the Professional Standards Department and I have dealt with this matter as a non-criminal complaint about the police. I have categorised the complaint as a 'Quality of Service' complaint relating to 'Service Outcome and the Police Failure to Take Action.'

On receipt of your complaint I instructed [Inspector D] to conduct an investigation and to report his findings back to me. In conjunction with this, I also instructed [Detective Inspector E] , who is a very experienced detective officer, to carry out a further review of the documentation you perceive to be evidence of criminality in order to provide a second and specialist opinion on the matter.

When dealing with complaints about the police, the investigating officer collates all of the evidence available including statements and also any relevant documentation available. In this case the only relevant evidence is that of the folder you have provided for reference and review, the statement you have provided to [Inspector D], the statement from [Inspector A] and finally, the information provided by [Detective Inspector E].

... In furtherance to this you have also highlighted the fact that the Tribunal ruled that they '.....didn't find that [the applicant's employer] had altered documents'

[Inspector A], who dealt with your original request for the police to review your folder of documents, states that he met with your home address [sic] on 17 February 2013 where he spoke with you and took possession of your folder of documents for review. He advised me that he reviewed all documents within the folder and although it is extensive in nature, there is no documentation present which contains evidence of any criminality...

Furthermore, [Inspector A], informed me that he had a further meeting with you on 2 March 2013 where he made you aware of his findings...

[Detective Inspector E], who is an experienced CID officer, has carried out a further review of the documentation contained within the folder. Having completed his examination, [Detective Inspector E] is firmly of the opinion that there is no evidence available within any of the documents that supports your claims of the crimes mentioned above. Moreover, he has examined the documentation available and has found no evidence either of fraudulently altered documents, altered evidence or perjury. In addition this officer highlights the fact that the Chairperson [of the employment tribunal] has specifically addressed your suggestion that the documents had been fraudulently altered and has recorded that this was totally unfounded on your part.

I would point out that you have indicated that, in your opinion, a number of the company representatives at the Tribunal committed perjury however, [Detective Inspector E] has identified that the Tribunal had actually questioned your credibility during proceedings recording that in their opinion '[the applicant] was evasive under questioning and deemed not to be credible'.

I have considered the findings of [Inspector A, Inspector D and Detective Inspector E] and I have also considered the findings of the Tribunal, Tribunal reviews and a decision by the Court of Session. Having weighed up this information against your allegation that the police have failed to identify and investigate serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, I have found your allegations to be unsubstantiated and accordingly, I do not uphold your complaint.."

Consideration

Prior to the issuing of Police Scotland's response to the complaint, Inspector D advised the applicant by telephone of Detective Inspector E's findings. On 16 August 2013 the applicant wrote to Chief Inspector C asking that he be provided with written reasons as to why the police had not found any evidence of criminal offences. It is clear that the information provided by the applicant in support of his allegations has been examined by a number of different police officers. In terms of the response to this complaint, however, there is little reasoning given as to how the police reached the conclusion that the information supplied by the applicant did not support his allegations.

The documents provided by the applicant to the police for examination were not within the police file provided to the Commissioner. Enquiries were made with Police Scotland during the course of the review and it appears the documents were not retained. The Commissioner's office therefore required to obtain the documents from the applicant.

In the Commissioner's view, in responding to this complaint Police Scotland ought to have provided more specific reasons as to why the information provided did not support the applicant's allegations, taking into account the representations made by him.

For example, the applicant claims that his former employer told the tribunal that his redundancy was one of 121 redundancies in the company at the time (which made it a collective redundancy situation i.e. involving more than 20 people). The tribunal made a finding to that effect. Employers must notify the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (formerly the Department of Trade and Industry) on an HR1 form of any proposed collective redundancies. The applicant provided to the police a copy of an email from the Insolvency Service dated 1 February 2008, which stated that it had no record of an HR1 form being received from the applicant's former employer in 2006. The applicant believes that the email proves that there were no redundancies of over 20 employees in 2006. The issue of whether the redundancy was a collective one appears to have been material to the applicant's tribunal case.

The applicant also alleged that former colleagues committed perjury during the employment tribunal proceedings and he provided to the police what he believed to be examples of this.

As the response to the complaint is not sufficiently reasoned, the Commissioner does not consider that this complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. The Commissioner recommends that Police Scotland provides a further response to the applicant providing a fuller explanation as to why the information provided by the applicant did not support the allegations he made, taking into account the allegations specified above.

Complaint 2: Incorrect advice

The applicant described this complaint as follows in his statement of 6 August 2013:

"I have tried to report my concerns to the police on a number of occasions: that the crimes were perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud occurred throughout the tribunal proceedings. I went to ... Strathclyde Police Headquarters in 2008 and was met by a cadet who listened to me and indicated that he felt that it was civil matter. I have visited [a police office] twice subsequently and basically told the same, as I don't recall the details or dates when speaking with police personnel but got a general belief that because it was a civil matter the police could not investigate it."

Internal Handling

Chief Inspector C replied to the applicant stating:

"...I have considered the part of your complaint regarding previous advice provided to you by a number of unidentified officers since 2008. I note that on each occasion the officers have taken time to listen to your complaint and have thereafter provided advice which has related to the matter being civil in nature. As the officers you spoke to cannot be identified and I cannot verify when you attended at these offices, I cannot speak to the people concerned.

Having now carried out a review of the circumstances surrounding your complaint, I can fully understand why the officers concerned would have come to the conclusion based on the information before them at the time, that the matter required to be dealt with under the appeals process as everything relates to your grievance with the Employment Tribunal. As a result of this, I also find this area of your complaint to be unsubstantiated and I therefore do not uphold this area of your complaint."

Consideration

The applicant was unable to provide specific details regarding his previous attempts to report the matters to the police; it was therefore not possible for Police Scotland to investigate the applicant's claims. It is also not known precisely what information the applicant provided to the officers concerned and therefore the basis of whatever they may have told the applicant is unclear. As can be seen from the applicant's statement above, the applicant also could not recall the details of the conversations he had with the officers concerned.

Given the absence of detail regarding what the applicant may have told the officers, the Commissioner considers that Chief Inspector C's comment that "he can fully understand why the officers concerned would have come to the conclusion based on the information before them at the time..." is not reflected by the evidence. In light of this, the Commissioner does not consider that this complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard.

Nonetheless, the Commissioner considers that Chief Inspector C's ultimate decision not to uphold the complaint was justified based on the available evidence. Without further details of the information provided to the officers, the Commissioner does not consider that it has been established, on the balance of probabilities, that they were incorrect in their assessment of the applicant's allegations. In these circumstances, the Commissioner does not consider it necessary for Police Scotland to take any further action in relation to this complaint.

Conclusions, Recommendations and Learning

Complaint 1: Alleged failure to identify and investigate reported crimes

In the Commissioner's view, this complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. The Commissioner recommends that Police Scotland provides a further response to the applicant providing a fuller explanation as to why the information provided by the applicant did not support the allegations he made, taking into account the allegations specified above.

Complaint 2: Incorrect advice

The Commissioner considers that this complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. For the reason given, however, the Commissioner does not require any further action by the police.

John McNeill

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 0QA

Ten days later, after summer holidays, I sent the following email reply to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Case Reference: PIRC/00501/12

Thank you for your last email with the review attached.

I am utterly confused by your review of this case. In the first head of complaint that you amended, the head of complaint read "That the police failed to identify and properly investigate serious crimes that you reported to them."ン. The outcome of your review states that the Police have now only to provide an explanation as to why the Police did not believe that the evidence supported the alleged crimes. This is NOT what the PIRC was tasked to do in this case, the PIRC was tasked to investigate why the Police failed to identify and properly investigate serious crimes. If someone commits a crime, you do not ask them for their excuses why they did not commit the crime, you gather the evidence, and arrest them if you think there is enough evidence, on the balance of probabilities, to prove that they committed the crime. the very fact that the PIRC could find no evidence or explanation as to why the Police did not believe that the evidence supported the alleged crimes, on the balance of probabilities, would strongly suggest that the Police have not investigated these crimes, and that this must therefore be criminal neglect of duty, since the Police are tasked with upholding the law.

Due to the above reasons, I now require answers to the following four questions:

1: The Police do not have the folder of evidence, the PIRC has the folder of evidence, is the PIRC going to send the folder of evidence back to the Police?

2: Is the PIRC going to monitor the process of the Police giving reasons as to why they did not think that any criminal acts had taken place?

3: Is there a date by which the Police should finish giving reasons as to why they did not think that any criminal acts had taken place?

4: If I, or the PIRC are not happy with the Police reasons as to why they did not think that any criminal acts had taken place, is the PIRC going to conduct a formal investigation into why the Police are not investigating these criminal acts, or is the PIRC going to pass this on to the COPFS as criminal neglect of duty?

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

On 27 July 2014 I sent the following email to both the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you help me please.

I am trying to take my case to the United Nations CRPD Committee.

My case, if I get the award I originally claimed for as a lost opportunity, could be worth a lot of money, because it involves being discriminated out of employment, loss of career, and loss of a very good future salary and pension. I am willing to donate 10% of my award to whoever helps me win my case (could be as much as 250-500m HUF). Even if you cannot physically represent me, if you could even advise me via email, it may be enough to help me win my case.

My case:

I was born on 12 August 1964. I have Type 1 Diabetes, and have had this condition since 1966. This is classified as a disability.

I was made redundant from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in 2006, after working for the company for eight years. The redundancy was sudden and completely unexpected, and I was the 7th longest serving employee in a team of 14 employees all performing the same role, Service Delivery Manager, in fact my job title, with hard factual evidence, was "Service Delivery Manager".

I had grave suspicions about the whole redundancy, and decided to take the company to an Employment Tribunal. During evidence discovery, I was given an email discussion between my manager and HR which stated that because of my diabetes, I was going to have prolonged periods of time off due to illness, and that I should be made redundant. The following email from a Senior HR Manager, stated that because I was going to be off sick alot in the future, to make me redundant. I was made redundant the following month. I had taken 2 days sickness absence in the previous 18 months, the average UK employee takes 8 days sickness absence a year. The company admitted that they hadn't even checked my attendance records.

This tribunal took place in July 2007, where the company was represented by London Barristers and a multinational legal company. A story was 'invented' that there had been a collective redundancy in 2006 at Oracle Corporation (this has now proved to be untrue), and that I was made redundant due to a collective redundancy, rather than disability discrimination. My case has always been that there was two direct disability discriminations which took place, the first one being the stereotypical assumption that diabetes equals future sickness absence, and the second one being that I was made redundant solely because of my diabetes. The tribunal ruled against me, and Oracle Corporation UK Ltd won the whole case, and was awarded £3,700.00 in costs despite claiming for £117,000.00.

This case then split into three cases at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, a reasonable adjustments appeal, a disability discrimination appeal, and a costs appeal. I was represented by a pro-bono Solicitor from Glasgow for the reasonable adjustments appeal and the disability discrimination appeal. All three cases were lost at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

I then took the disability discrimination case to the Court of Session myself, and the Court of Session heard the appeal over three hearings and a decision against me was made in early 2010. Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, represented by an Advocate at the Court of Session appeal hearings, claimed for costs, and were awarded approximately £7,000.

I tried to take the case to the UK Supreme Court in 2010, but they stated in an email that they had no jurisdiction.

I then took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, and a single judge from Malta threw the application out.

I then took the case to the United Nations, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), who threw the case out 'ratione temporis' (facts occurred prior to the CRPD coming into force in the UK) despite the Court of Session judgement being after the CRPD came into force in the UK, and it being an ongoing situation, ie: UK have not found disability discrimination. I have complained to the UN, and they have stated in writing that I, or someone representing me, can submit another communication (appeal) to them.

That is where I am at the moment.

I will not stop fighting this case, as stating that diabetes will result in future sickness absence is disability discrimination, and it is not negated by an alleged redundancy. It is also an injustice for a large employer to turn up at an Employment Tribunal and 'invent' a collective redundancy, commit perjury, alter and fabricate evidence, and pervert the course of justice.

Any help that you could provide would be greatly appreciated, as I only have myself at the moment.

Thanks,

Kenneth

I immediately received the following automated email reply from the Robert F. Kennedy Center:

Thank you for contacting the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights. A representaive from the Center will contact you once he or she receives your inquiry. Thank you again and have a great day.

On 5 August 2014 I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find the attached letter from your Review Officer.

Kind regards,

Jacqui Rennie

Corporate Services

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Attached letter read:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 0QA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

5 August 2014

PCCS/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your email dated 21 July 2014.

The role of the PIRC in its review function is to examine the way in which the police deal with particular kinds of complaint. This involves considering the information provided by the police and the applicant and making an assessment as to whether in all the circumstances the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. One of the factors which is taken into account when making this assessment is whether the policing body's response to the complaint is adequately reasoned. In your case, we found that it was not.

The answers to the questions you asked are as follows:

1. Your lever arch folder has been sent to the Professional Standards Department at Pitt Street, Glasgow.

2. The PIRC will monitor the implementation of the recommendation.

3. The normal timescale for implementing recommendations is 28 days. However, this timescale is not always met due to the level of work which requires to be carried out in some cases to implement the recommendations. I anticipate that Police Scotland will require additional time to deal with the recommendation in your case. As stated above, however, this will be monitored by the PIRC.

4. The review of your case is now complete. Our responsibility now is to monitor the implementation of our recommendation. We will only consider the recommendation implemented when we are satisfied with the action taken. We previously advised you that we considered your complaints against the police to fall within the remit of the PIRC and not the COPFS. We will therefore not be referring the matter to the COPFS. We also advised you previously that we would not be conducting a public interest investigation.

Your sincerely

Ms D Maloney

Review Officer

Twelve days later I sent the following email to the Centre for Civil and Political Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was on your website, communications database, and noticed that out of 1029 decisions on the CCPR, not one decision is against the UK.

So I checked this out on the UN website in treaty bodies search, and sure enough out of 726 decisions, not one decision is against the UK.

Comparable countries to the UK have the following CCPR decisions against them:

Australia = 55

Canada = 66

France = 42

Germany = 14

Netherlands = 43

Spain = 99

UK = 0

Surely this cannot be right, or if it is correct, why is the international community not asking any questions regarding why the UK has not broken one article of the CCPR, ever?

Can you provide an answer to this question?

Mr KR McAlpine

I then sent another email to the Centre for Civil and Political Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you help me please.

I am trying to take my case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, under the ICCPR, and would appreciate even the smallest of help.

My case:

I was born on 12 August 1964. I have Type 1 Diabetes, and have had this condition since 1966. This is classified as a disability.

I was made redundant from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in 2006, after working for the company for eight years. The redundancy was sudden and completely unexpected, and I was the 7th longest serving employee in a team of 14 employees all performing the same role, Service Delivery Manager, in fact my job title, with hard factual evidence, was "Service Delivery Manager".

I had grave suspicions about the whole redundancy, and decided to take the company to an Employment Tribunal. During evidence discovery, I was given an email discussion between my manager and HR which stated that because of my diabetes, I was going to have prolonged periods of time off due to illness, and that I should be made redundant. The following email from a Senior HR Manager, stated that because I was going to be off sick alot in the future, to make me redundant. I was made redundant the following month. I had taken 2 days sickness absence in the previous 18 months, the average UK employee takes 8 days sickness absence a year. The company admitted that they hadn't even checked my attendance records.

This tribunal took place in July 2007, where the company was represented by London Barristers and a multinational legal company. A story was 'invented' that there had been a collective redundancy in 2006 at Oracle Corporation (this has now proved to be untrue), and that I was made redundant due to a collective redundancy, rather than disability discrimination. My case has always been that there was two direct disability discriminations which took place, the first one being the stereotypical assumption that diabetes equals future sickness absence, and the second one being that I was made redundant solely because of my diabetes. The tribunal ruled against me, and Oracle Corporation UK Ltd won the whole case, and was awarded costs.

This case then split into three cases at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, a reasonable adjustments appeal, a disability discrimination appeal, and a costs appeal. I was represented by a pro-bono Solicitor from Glasgow for the reasonable adjustments appeal and the disability discrimination appeal. All three cases were lost at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

I then took the disability discrimination case to the Court of Session myself, and the Court of Session heard the appeal over three hearings and a decision against me was made in early 2010. Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, represented by an Advocate at the Court of Session appeal hearings, claimed for costs, and were awarded costs.

I tried to take the case to the UK Supreme Court in 2010, but they stated in an email that they had no jurisdiction.

I then took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, and a single judge from Malta threw the application out without examining the case.

I then took the case to the United Nations, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), who threw the case out 'ratione temporis' (facts occurred prior to the CRPD coming into force in the UK) despite the Court of Session judgement being after the CRPD came into force in the UK, and it being an ongoing situation.

That is where I am at the moment.

I now wish to take this case to the HRC under the ICCPR, because I believe that it is disability discrimination to state that someone with a disability is going to be offsick alot in the future.

I would like to receive help, but if you cannot help, I will take this case to the HRC myself.

Mr KR McAlpine

On 19 August 2014 I received the following email from the Centre for Civil and Political Rights:

Dear Mr. McAlpine,

As I mentioned in my previous email, the UK has not ratified the Optional Protocol 1 to the ICCPR. In this sense, unfortunately, the Committee has no jurisdiction to decide an individual communication against the UK.

Best regards,

CCPR-Centre

Later that same day I received another email from the Centre for Civil and Political Rights:

Dear Mr. KR McAlpine,

The Human Rights Committee is not competent to decide individual cases against the UK because the UK has not ratified the Optional Protocol 1 to the ICCPR. This is the reason why there are 0 cases against the UK.

However, as you might know, the Committee will adopt a List of Issues on the UK during its next session in October. The review of the UK by the Human Rights Committee is scheduled by July 2015.

Best regards,

CCPR-Centre

Later that afternoon I sent the following email to the Centre for Civil and Political Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your reply, I noticed that the UK had not signed the optional protocol shortly after I sent the email to you.

On a more worrying note, I have noticed that the UK has not had one decision against it, out of all the conventions, communications and decisions that the UN has ever made.

Why is that?

If I were any other country that is part of the UN, I would not be pleased, that I get decisions made against me, while the UK has not had one decision made against them.

Has no-one from the UN ever raised that as a serious point, or put pressure on the UK to ratify more conventions, so that they can face up to justice, rather than evade justice.

It seems to be one rule for the UK, and another rule for many other countries.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Chapter 13

On 15 September 2014 I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a document with new information concerning Communication Number 6/2011.

I have also sent a hard copy of this document by post (Reference Number: RN051923517GB) which was tracked and signed for and arrived at your offices on Friday 12 September 2014.

Thanks,

Mr KR McAlpine

Attached document read:

8 September 2014

Communication Number: 6/2011

OHCHR

Petitions Team

Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find enclosed within this document new information concerning Communication Number 6/2011. This information was not available to either the CRPD Committee or myself at the time of writing, submitting or deciding Communication Number 6/2011.

In CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 it states:

"6.4 The Committee considers that, in accordance with article 2, paragraph (f), of the Optional Protocol, it may not examine alleged violations of the Convention that occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, in the present case on 6 September 2009, unless the facts continued after that date."

All the facts contained in Communication Number 6/2011 have now been re-examined by the State, and the State has re-affirmed its position regarding the facts and earlier decisions made by the Tribunals and Courts.

This should now allow either Communication Number 6/2011 to be re-examined or myself to lodge a new communication can you please advise which?

I have set out the new evidence and arguments as to why Communication Number 6/2011, or a new communication, should now be admissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol in the following pages.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

After the CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 decision of the CRPD Committee adopted by the Committee at its eighth session, 17 to 28 September 2012, the author of the communication decided that if he could not get justice for the discrimination that had taken place, the perpetrators of the discrimination would not escape justice.

On 23 January 2013 the author contacted the police professional standards department, after several earlier attempts to report the crimes of perjury, altering and fabricating evidence, and perverting the course of justice.

From 23 January 2013 to 17 September 2013 the police conducted investigations into these crimes, and found that, in their view, no crimes had been committed.

I then contacted the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) on 7 October 2013, and filed a complaint against the police handling of my case. The PIRC finished investigating my case and published their findings on 8 July 2014. In their findings, they found that my case had not been dealt with to a reasonable standard, but instead of requesting the police to reinvestigate the case, they only ordered the police to provide a fuller explanation as to why they did not find any crimes. This has not helped me whatsoever, and has allowed the perpetrators of the discrimination to escape justice.

It has only been in the last couple of months that I have been able to contact the CRPD Committee regarding these State acts, because if the police or PIRC had properly investigated my case or reinvestigated my case, then I would not have had to contact the CRPD Committee again.

In the following pages I have outlined the reasons why CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011, or a new communication which would be the same as CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011, should now be accepted and the merits be reviewed without any further delay.

As the United Kingdom has already provided the "State party's observations on the admissibility" within CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 (paras 4.1 to 4.4), I will only deal with the three reasons why the United Kingdom felt that CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 was inadmissible.

Admissibility

Article 2, paragraph (f)

Article 2, paragraph (f) of the Optional Protocol states:

"The facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State Party concerned unless those facts continued after that date."

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights website, under "Human Rights Treaty Bodies - Individual Communications" states:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/TBPetitions/Pages/IndividualCommunications.aspx \- proceduregenerale

"The Human Rights Committee has developed some exceptions to the rule that it cannot examine facts occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the State concerned. Thus, it is usually a sufficient ground for the Committee to examine the complaint if, after the date of entry into force of the Optional Protocol, there has been a court decision or some other State act validating the facts preceding that date which constitute the purpose of the complaint."

My first argument is that all the facts contained in CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 were presented to the police ("some other State act"), who validated the facts preceding the entry into force of the Optional Protocol that constituted the purpose of the complaint contained in CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011. The police state:

Police letter dated 17 Sep 2013, page 1, 2nd paragraph (Page 10 of this document):

"I can assure you that I take this role very seriously and before deciding what course of action to take, I weigh up all the evidence and information and carefully review all relevant circumstances."

The police and PIRC have not only validated all the facts and all the judgements in this case that preceded the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, but they have also reaffirmed all the decisions, and as a consequence, this is now an ongoing act that is preventing the author from obtaining justice.

"A continuing violation is to be interpreted as an affirmation, after the entry into force of the optional protocol, by act or by clear implication, of previous violations by the state party."

\- 1159/2003, Mariam Sankara v. Burkina Faso, para 6.3, views of 28 March 2006

The CRPD Committee could only be of the view that it could not consider violations that occurred before the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the United Kingdom unless those violations continued after the Protocol's entry into force. A continuing violation is to be interpreted as an affirmation, after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, by act or by clear implication, of previous violations by the State party. The CRPD Committee must therefore take note of the authors' arguments concerning, first, the failure of the authorities to conduct a full investigation into the crimes committed at the initial tribunal (which was public knowledge) and to prosecute those responsible. These constitute violations of the rights of the author and of the obligations of States under the Covenant. Consequently, insofar as, according to the information provided by the author, the alleged violations resulting from the failure to conduct an investigation and prosecute the guilty parties have affected the author since the entry into force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol because the proceedings have not concluded to date.

Article 2, paragraph (c)

Article 2, paragraph (c) of the Optional Protocol states:

"The same matter has already been examined by the Committee or has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;"

An application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in December 2008. This application concerned a part of my case struck out by the Employment Tribunal regarding reasonable adjustments. I also lodged and joined a further application concerning alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning my rights to a fair hearing and discrimination in conjunction with other articles. A further application was also lodged and joined in December 2010 concerning awards of expenses made against me.

The European Court of Human Rights informed me on 4 April 2011 that a single Judge had declared my application, including all further joined applications, inadmissible.

On the web page: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/individual.htm

It states:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Treaty Bodies - Individual Communications

23 FAQ about Treaty Body complaints procedures

Additional pointers on the admissibility of your case

"Second, the Committee has taken the view that, inasmuch as the Covenant provides greater protection in some respects than is available under other international instruments, facts that have already been submitted to another international mechanism can be brought before the Committee if broader protections in the Covenant are invoked. It should be added that, in the Committee's view, complaints dismissed by other international mechanisms on procedural grounds have not been substantively examined; the same facts may therefore be brought before the Committee."

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides much broader protections to people with disabilities than the European Convention on Human Rights.

The application dismissed by the European Court of Human Rights was on procedural grounds, and did not result in any hearing, so has not been substantively examined. In the ECHR letter dated 29 March 2011 (Page 13 of this document) it stated "The present communication is made pursuant to Rule 52A of the Rules of Court."

Rule 52A – Procedure before a single judge

1. In accordance with Article 27 of the Convention, a single judge may declare inadmissible or strike out of the Court's list of cases an application submitted under Article 34, where such a decision can be taken without further examination. The decision shall be final. The applicant shall be informed of the decision by letter.

The title of Rule 52A clearly states that it is a "Procedure", and the text of Rule52A (1) again clearly states that this procedural decision can be taken "without further examination". This wording clearly indicates that the complaint was dismissed on procedural grounds, and that it was certainly not substantively examined, and can therefore be brought before the Committee [CCPR 1389/2005, para 4.3; CCPR 1086/2002, para 8.3; CCPR 1060/2002, para 10.2].

Also, the United Kingdom has not made any reservations or declarations that does not recognise the jurisdiction of the CRPD Committee to consider complaints that have already been examined or considered from the European Court of Human Rights or another international complaint procedure [CCPR 1517/2006, para 6.2; CCPR 1507/2006, para 6.2; CCPR 1285/2004, para 8.2]

Article 2, paragraph (e)

Article 2, paragraph (e) of the Optional Protocol states:

"It is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated;"

"6.14 With respect to the author's claim that all of the legal proceedings against him constituted inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment, in violation of article 7, the Committee notes that the author makes this claim in a sweeping and unsubstantiated form, without offering a minimum of documentary materials, explanations or arguments in support of his claim. The Committee therefore considers this claim incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant according to article 3 of the Optional Protocol."

\- 1771/2008, Mohamed Sama v. Germany, para 6.14, views of 25 October 2005

It seems to the author, that in order for a claim to be well founded and sufficiently substantiated it has to have documentary materials, explanations or arguments in support of a claim.

The author has provided hard, factual evidence (documentary materials) for all claims contained within CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011.

The author has also explained (explanations) relevant existing State laws and relevant provisions of the Convention.

The author has developed arguments (arguments) where the hard, factual evidence breaks existing State laws and/or breaks articles protected by the Convention.

"4.4 ........ In this regard, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence [Footnote 2 See Communication No. 541/1993, Errol Simms v. Jamaica, inadmissibility decision of 3 April 1995, para. 6.2.] that it is generally for the domestic courts to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that such evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice."

\- 1624/2007, José Conrado Seto Martínez v. Spain, para 4.4, views of 19 March 2010

The author has clearly shown with hard factual evidence that the tribunal and courts evaluation of the facts and evidence was clearly arbitrary and amounted to a denial of justice.

This claim (CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011) is therefore well founded and sufficiently substantiated, and should now proceed to the merits without any further delay.

Around three weeks passed before I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

PALAIS DES NATIONS

1211 GENEVA 10

SWITZERLAND

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR(GEN)

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Geneva, 3 October 2014

We hereby acknowledge receipt of your communication, dated 8 September 2014. After careful consideration of the contents of your petition, we sincerely regret to inform you that the Petitions and Inquiries Section of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is not in a position to assist you in the matter you raise, for the following reason: you inform the Committee that you have initiated a new procedure at domestic level with regard to the alleged violations of the Convention that you have already submitted previously, in the context of your complaint that was examined by the Committee in its decision CRPD/C/8/6/2011. Nonetheless, the facts that you brought to the attention of the police fall outside of the competence ratione materiae of these authorities as it refers to work conditions and employment. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities can therefore not infer any form of discrimination contrary to the Convention on the basis of the information provided in the decisions adopted by the referred authorities.

The Committee is therefore not in condition to register your new complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Petitions and Inquiries Section

On 21 October 2014 I sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Case Reference: PIRC/00501/12

It has now been over three months since your review of this case was published, and I have not received any correspondence regarding a police apology from either the police or a police apology via the PIRC. I was told this should take 28 days.

How much longer should I expect to wait?

Regards,

Mr McAlpine

I immediately received an automated email stating that my email had been received at the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

The next day I sent the following email to the Web Manager at the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been using your website and database recently to research some cases.

I have been impressed with the speed of the database that you are using, and how quickly results are returned from queries.

Can you give me the name of the company that makes the database you are using , and what version the database is?

Thanks,

Ken

Two days later I received the following email from the Web Manager at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Thank you for your nice message.

Could you let me know which database you are referring to?

Best regards.

OHCHR webmanager.

I immediately replied to this email with the following email to the Web Manager at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am sorry, but I thought that you would only have one database and/or database company. If you have more than one database and/or database company, I would be interested in what database and database company you use for relevant functions within your organisation (ie: Oracle, SAP, etc).

I was impressed with the speed of returned queries regarding documents and decisions.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Ken

Later that same day I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your recent email advising that you have not yet received any correspondence from Police Scotland in connection with the recommendation we made in the complaint handling review. We have been writing to Police Scotland requesting updates on the implementation of the recommendation and have been advised that the enquiry is now complete and a letter has been forwarded to us. I have contacted Police Scotland again today to advise that we have not received any correspondence and have requested that they update us asap. I will write to them again if I do not receive a response by next week.

Kind regards

Debbie Maloney

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Five days later I received the following email from the Web Manager at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Thank you for your message and for the information.

Best regards.

OHCHR webmanager.

Three days later I sent the following email to the pro bono email address of the international public law firm Volterra Fietta:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I was born on 12 August 1964. I have Type 1 Diabetes, and have had this condition since 1966.

I was made redundant from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in 2006, after working for the company for eight years. The redundancy was sudden and completely unexpected, and I was the 7th longest serving employee in a team of 14 employees all performing the same role, Service Delivery Manager, in fact my job title, with hard factual evidence, was "Service Delivery Manager".

I had grave suspicions about the whole redundancy, and decided to take the company to an Employment Tribunal. During evidence discovery, I was given an email discussion between my manager and HR which stated that because of my diabetes, I was going to have prolonged periods of time off due to illness, and that I should be made redundant. The following email from a Senior HR Manager, stated that because I was going to be off sick alot in the future, to make me redundant. I was made redundant the following month. I had taken 2 days sickness absence in the previous 18 months, the average UK employee (with or without a disability) takes 8 days sickness absence a year. The company admitted that they hadn't even checked my attendance records.

This tribunal took place in July 2007, where the company was represented by London Barristers and a multinational legal company. This team 'invented' a story that there had been a collective redundancy in 2006 at Oracle Corporation (this has now proved to be untrue), and that I was made redundant due to a collective redundancy, rather than disability discrimination.

My case has always been that there was two direct disability discriminations which took place, the first one being the stereotypical assumption that diabetes equals future sickness absence, and the second one being that I was made redundant solely because of my diabetes. The tribunal ruled against me, and Oracle Corporation UK Ltd won the whole case, and was awarded £3,700.00 in costs.

This case then split into three cases at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, a reasonable adjustments appeal, a disability discrimination appeal, and a costs appeal. I was represented by a pro-bono Solicitor from Glasgow for the reasonable adjustments appeal and the disability discrimination appeal. All three cases were lost at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

I then took the disability discrimination case to the Court of Session myself, and the Court of Session heard the appeal over three hearings and a decision against me was made in early 2010. Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, represented by an Advocate at the Court of Session appeal hearings, claimed for costs, and were awarded approximately £7,000.

I tried to take the case to the UK Supreme Court in 2010, but they stated in an email that they had no jurisdiction.

I then took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, and a single judge from Malta threw the application out. Malta is a member of The Commonwealth (aka British Commonwealth), rather like a Judge who is the cousin of your opponent sitting in judgement against you.

I then took the case to the United Nations, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), who threw the case out 'ratione temporis' (facts occurred prior to the CRPD coming into force in the UK) despite the Court of Session judgement being after the CRPD came into force in the UK, and it being an ongoing situation, ie: UK have not outlawed this disability discrimination.

I will not stop fighting this case, as stating that diabetes will result in future sickness absence is direct disability discrimination and 245 million diabetics would not be happy as being classed as a group of individuals who will have future sickness absence, and it is not negated by an alleged redundancy. It is also an injustice for a large employer to turn up at an Employment Tribunal and 'invent' a collective redundancy, commit perjury, alter and fabricate evidence, and pervert the course of justice.

I also have another chance to put either a new or existing appeal back into the United Nations CRPD Committee, as all the evidence and judgments have been reaffirmed recently.

If you really want to do some good for 245 million people, then please take this pro bono work on.

Thanks,

Kenneth

I quickly received the following email reply from the international public law firm Volterra Fietta:

Many thanks for your email and for your interest in Volterra Fietta's pro bono practice.

Your enquiry is now being processed and we will revert to you as soon as possible.

Please note that pro bono enquiries are assessed by our pro bono committee. On average, the assessment process takes up to two weeks. However, we make all endeavours to contact potential pro bono clients at the earliest possible opportunity to advise them on the outcome of their assessment, so we will respond to any enquiries as soon as we can within the specified timeframe.

We will be in touch in due course.

Kind regards,

The Volterra Fietta Pro Bono Committee

Later that same morning I received another email reply from the international public law firm Volterra Fietta:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

We have received your email below. We will consider your request for pro bono legal assistance and will revert in due course.

Regards,

Patricio Grané.

Patricio Grané Labat

Volterra Fietta

On 5 November 2014 I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to my recent email about the recommendation we made to Police Scotland. Unfortunately, I am not yet in a position to confirm Police Scotland's progress on this, as I am still awaiting a response to my enquiries. I am sending you this email, however, to make you aware that I am continuing to chase the matter up, and I will contact you again as soon as I receive a response.

Kind regards

Debbie Maloney

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Around 8 November 2014 I received the following letter from Police Scotland:

POLICE SCOTLAND

Keeping people safe

06 November 2014

Your Ref:

Our Ref: JH/C0/00220/13/UAl26/13

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

Dear Mr McAlpine

COMPLAINT ABOUT THE POLICE

I refer to my previous correspondence of the 8 September 2013 in response to your Complaint About the Police and the recently published Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) review of the handling of your complaint. Having considered the recommendation contained within the PIRC review, I can now provide you with the following update.

As a Detective Chief Inspector in Ayrshire Division, I have management responsibility for CID operations within Ayrshire and this also includes oversight of initial enquiries relating to Complaints about the Police made by members of the public. In addition, I also have responsibility for considering and implementing recommendations made by the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) following their review of the police handling complaints that have been referred to them.

Firstly, I would offer my apologies for the delay in my response. However, as you will be aware your complaint was complex in nature and required the consideration of a large folder of documents collated by you and relating to your complaint. To address the recommendation made from PIRC I have had to reacquaint myself with the content and detail of the documentation.

The PIRC review has recommended that Police Scotland provides a further response to the applicant providing a fuller explanation as to why the information provided by the applicant did not support the allegations he made.'

The allegations refer to alleged failure to identify and investigate reported crimes initially identified by you as Perjury and Fraud. In particular, the PIRC has made mention of the fact that you have alleged that your employers stated during the Employment Tribunal that you were one of 121 redundancies, which is contradicted by an email you received from the Insolvency Service indicating that they have no record of your previous employer submitting an HR1 form to notify of redundancies of over 20 persons.

In the statements from the tribunal noted from the witness Malcolm Thomson, he clearly states that `...in total some 121 employees were proposed to be made redundant in these redundancy exercises.' In the statement of witness Catherine Semple she states '50 UK employees were proposed to be made redundant between 13 and 31 March 2006 and a further 69 between 15 and 30 June 1996.' I also note that this information appears within the published tribunal judgement. In direct response to this matter you have indicated that you believe that the crime of Perjury has been committed as a result of this falsehood.

To prove the crime of Perjury it must be established that someone has made a false statement on oath or affirmation and that the falsehood was deliberately made on a matter of fact and not opinion or belief. In the statements above both witnesses have clearly stated that the redundancies were 'proposed' and neither appeared to fully commit to knowing that these redundancies had all taken place. In addition, none of these witnesses have acknowledged responsibility for having knowledge of the completion and submission of the form HR1 in relation to the redundancies.

In your file of information you indicate that you have received an email from David Rowan from the Insolvency Service indicating that he can find no trace of the submission of an HR1 form and this proves that no redundancies of over 20 people took place. I would point out that this information from David Rowan only provides evidence that he could not find any trace of the form or that there may have been a process failure whereby the form has not been submitted or properly recorded.

In addition to the foregoing, you have indicated that former colleagues committed Perjury during the tribunal and you have provided numerous examples of your interpretation of the acts of Perjury allegedly committed. Again I would make reference to the definition of Perjury quoted above and would highlight that it is not sufficient to show a discrepancy between two statements (Bole v. Stevenson S.L.R. 55) but that it is necessary to prove the statement is false and the accused knew it was false (Sanderson v. Hart 1969, S.L.T. 116) to establish the crime. From the witness statements I have read there are clear discrepancies in your evidence and evidence included in the other witness statements however, there is not a sufficiency of evidence available to establish the crime of Perjury.

Lastly you indicated that there were a number of altered documents within the folder provided by you, which you consider had been fraudulently altered. It is clear from the tribunal verdict and summary that there are clear and credible explanations given by your former employees, which in some cases have been conceded by you, providing the reasons for the perceived alterations in the documents. It is explained that some are due to photocopying issues and other have been found as being 'not material to the claim' by the tribunal chairperson and therefore irrelevant as evidential material.

Having personally reviewed the documentation it is my opinion that it is evident that there are a quantity of poor photocopies of documents and some irrelevant material, as indicated by the chairperson, however there is nothing evident which would indicate that there is false representation, false conduct or an intention to deceive within any of this documentation.

I therefore regret to inform you that after a further review of the documentation provided by you, I am still of the opinion that there has been no crime established. I would however suggest that there may be information present, if you can establish the company's failure to submit form HR1, which you may wish to pursue through a solicitor as possible grounds for an appeal through the Employment Tribunal process.

I hope this information has provided some further clarity in relation to your original Complaint About the Police.

John Hogg

Detective Chief Inspector

Public Protection Unit

Ayrshire & Dumfries

Kilmarnock

On 10 November 2014 I sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have just received a letter from Police Scotland this morning.

There is no apology, and the letter is from the investigating officer, John Hogg.

It was John Hogg who was the Chief Inspector of North Ayrshire, when I submitted the complaint to the PIRC.

So, John Hogg has investigated John Hogg.

This is completely unacceptable in any circumstance.

Why did John Hogg not declare a conflict of interest, and contact the PIRC?

Police Scotland are treating the PIRC and myself as fools.

I trust that the PIRC will now conduct a full Investigation into this matter, rather than a review.

Mr K McAlpine

Immediately I received an automated email reply from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner stating that they had received this email.

One week later I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your recent email advising that you have now received a letter from Police Scotland. I was not in the office last week and I am now working through my mail. I will contact you again once I've considered the terms of Police Scotland's letter.

Kind regards

Debbie Maloney

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Later that afternoon I sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Debbie,

Perhaps the attached document will help you consider the terms of Police Scotland's letter.

Regards,

Kenneth McAlpine

Attached document read:

Mr K.R. McAlpine

17 November 2014

Case Reference: PIRC/00501/12

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

HAMILTON

ML3 0QA

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have received a letter from Police Scotland dated 6 November 2014 (pages 3 To 5 of this document).

In this letter, Detective Chief Inspector John Hogg states "The allegations refer to alleged failure to identify and investigate reported crimes initially identified by you as Perjury and Fraud." (Page 4 of this document).

This is simply not true, my case has always been of failing to identify and properly investigate the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud, which have perverted the course of justice.

In fact, my statement to the police, and the review of the PIRC both clearly state:

"Despite repeated attempts to report the matters of failing to identify and properly investigate the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud to the police, they have failed to investigate the matters arising from the employment tribunal."

The letter from Detective Chief Inspector John Hogg then goes on to talk about Perjury, and states (Page 4 of this document):

"To prove the crime of Perjury it must be established that someone has made a false statement on oath or affirmation and that the falsehood was deliberately made on a matter of fact and not opinion or belief. In the statements above both witnesses have clearly stated that the redundancies were 'proposed' and neither appeared to fully commit to knowing that these redundancies had all taken place."

Both witnesses used the word 'proposed' because at that point in their witness statements, February 2006, they were both talking about redundancies to be made later that year, so usage of the word 'proposed' is proper grammar. However, for Detective Chief Inspector John Hogg to state that both witnesses did not commit to knowing or approving that redundancies, collective or otherwise, had taken place is simply wrong, and very poor police and detective work.

In Catherine Temple's witness statement, at paragraph 27 it states (Page 6 of this document):

"In about May 2006. approval for the second tranche of the RIF exercise was given with

the announcement to affected staff to be given on 30 and 31 May 2006."

RIF = Reduction In Force (American term for redundancy)

In Malcolm Thompson's witness statement, at paragraph 7 it states (Page 7 of this document):

"I am aware of, and have read the statements of both Phil Snowden and Cathy Temple and can confirm that I agree that these accurately reflect my recollection of events in April and May 2006."

This is also against the law and is witness collusion, as Malcolm Thompson should not have read other witnesses statements.

There is also one other overriding fact in all this, the Employment Tribunal state in the section Findings in Fact, at paragraph 49 (Page 8 of this document):

"The need for redundancy, and the reasons for it, had been discussed at the respondent's employee consultation forum. In total 121 employees across the UK were made redundant."

The only way the Employment Tribunal would have made this finding in fact is from all the witnesses convincing the Tribunal that there was a collective redundancy of 121 employees. This is not only Perjury, but perverting the course of justice as well, because the Insolvency Service has  no record of an HR1 form being submitted in 2006 for this collective redundancy, an act which is not only against the law, but is punishable by summary conviction.

I could also go on at length about the evidence I have from the Insolvency Service, the letter from the respondent's law firm admitting that an HR1 form had not been submitted and also the evidence of all the altered and fabricated documents, the purpose of which is to show that an alleged collective redundancy took place, but this is all in my folder. John Hogg states that he can find no altered or fabricated documents, but if he had taken 10 minutes to check with the Insolvency Service that there had been no collective redundancy by Oracle in 2006, then this would have proved beyond any doubt that all the emails and evidence regarding a collective redundancy and RIF list were all false.

Throughout his letter John Hogg has used the Tribunal judgement and respondent evidence as his sole investigative tool and has completely failed to provide investigative explanations as to why my considerable documentation did not merit an unbiased appraisal and an investigation of all of the evidence. I trust that you will now conduct a PIRC investigation into this matter regarding, among other things, the response from John Hogg, as it is in the public interest as well as my interests that alleged criminality should be properly investigated.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

I immediately received an automated email reply from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner stating that they had received the email.

Chapter 14

On 19 November 2014 I sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see attached document "UN CRPD 18 November 2014".

Regards,

Mr McAlpine

Attached document read:

Mr K.R. McAlpine

18 November 2014

Communication Number: 6/2011

OHCHR

Petitions Team

Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 3 October 2014 (Page 6) in which you again refused my communication for no good reason whatsoever.

Can you explain why the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has never, in 36 years, found one decision against the United Kingdom in any of the following conventions:

* Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

* International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

* Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women

* International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

* International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

* International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

* International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

* Convention on the Rights of the Child

* Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Only 4 cases have been accepted in 36 years, all 4 being thrown out before the merits were even examined (Page 7).

Comparable sized countries, such as Spain and France have had 118 and 85 cases accepted (Pages 8 and 9).

Can you provide a rational reason why that is?

Now, getting back to my case (one of the four UK cases thrown out), I would now like to show as an example just how unfair the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is against UK cases.

In your letter dated 3 October 2014 (Page 6), you clearly state:

"Nonetheless, the facts that you brought to the attention of the police fall outside of the competence ratione materiae of these authorities as it refers to work conditions and employment."

In my reaffirmation letter (attached document "CRPD_C_8_D_6_2011 Reaffirmation"), it clearly states:

"On 23 January 2013 the author contacted the police professional standards department, after several earlier attempts to report the crimes of perjury, altering and fabricating evidence, and perverting the course of justice.

From 23 January 2013 to 17 September 2013 the police conducted investigations into these crimes, and found that, in their view, no crimes had been committed."

Where in my reaffirmation letter (attached document "CRPD_C_8_D_6_2011 Reaffirmation") does it state that I approached the police regarding work conditions and employment?

In your letter dated 3 October 2014 (Page 6), you also clearly state:

"you inform the Committee that you have initiated a new procedure at domestic level with regard to the alleged violations of the Convention that you have already submitted previously"

In my reaffirmation letter (attached document "CRPD_C_8_D_6_2011 Reaffirmation"), where does it state that I "have initiated a new procedure at domestic level"?

Why was my case (CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011) stored on your database under country Algeria, continent Middle East and North Africa (Page 10), when it is a UK case?

Please explain why CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010 was admissible and CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011 inadmissible?

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010

Start of facts of the case: 11 April 2005

First Court Case: 5 August 2005

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 3 May 2008

Last Court Case: 4 February 2009

Result: Admissible (ratione temporis)

UN Communication Number: CRPD/C/8/D/6/2011

Start of facts of the case: 10 July 2006

First Court Case: 2 July 2007

Entry into force of CRPD convention: 6 September 2009

Last Court Case: 12 February 2010

Result: Inadmissible (ratione temporis)

I will now require the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to answer all five questions above in bold, and to reconsider again document "CRPD_C_8_D_6_2011 Reaffirmation".

A brief summary of my case is outlined on the following page.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr McAlpine

I was born on 12 August 1964. I have Type 1 Diabetes, and have had this condition since 1966.

I was made redundant from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd in 2006, after working for the company for eight years. The redundancy was sudden and completely unexpected, and I was the 7th longest serving employee in a team of 14 employees all performing the same role, Service Delivery Manager, in fact my job title, with hard factual evidence, was "Service Delivery Manager".

I had grave suspicions about the whole redundancy, and decided to take the company to an Employment Tribunal. During evidence discovery, I was given an email discussion between my manager and HR which stated that because of my diabetes, I was going to have prolonged periods of time off due to illness, and that I should be made redundant. Following on from that email discussion, an email from a Senior HR Manager stated that, because I was going to be off sick a lot in the future, redundancy should be actioned and it went on to suggest when it will be actioned. I was made redundant the following month. I had taken 2 days sickness absence in the previous 18 months, the average UK employee (with or without a disability) takes 8 days sickness absence a year. The company admitted that they hadn't even checked my attendance records.

This tribunal took place in July 2007, where the company was represented by London Barristers and a multinational legal company. This team 'invented' a story that there had been a collective redundancy in 2006 at Oracle Corporation UK Ltd (this has now proved to be untrue), and that I was made redundant due to a collective redundancy, rather than disability discrimination.

My case has always been that there was two direct disability discriminations which took place, the first one being the stereotypical assumption that diabetes equals future sickness absence, and the second one being that I was made redundant solely because of my diabetes. The tribunal ruled against me, and Oracle Corporation UK Ltd won the whole case, and was awarded £3,700.00 in costs.

This case then split into three cases at the Employment Appeal Tribunal, a reasonable adjustments appeal, a disability discrimination appeal, and a costs appeal. I was represented by a pro-bono Solicitor from Glasgow for the reasonable adjustments appeal and the disability discrimination appeal. All three cases were lost at the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

I then took the disability discrimination case to the Court of Session myself, and the Court of Session heard the appeal over three hearings and a decision against me was made in early 2010. Oracle Corporation UK Ltd, represented by an Advocate at the Court of Session appeal hearings, claimed for costs, and were awarded approximately £7,000.

I tried to take the case to the UK Supreme Court in 2010, but they stated in an email that they had no jurisdiction.

I then took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, and a single judge from Malta threw the application out. Malta is a member of The Commonwealth (aka British Commonwealth), rather like a Judge who is the cousin of your opponent sitting in judgement against you.

I then took the case to the United Nations, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), who threw the case out 'ratione temporis' (facts occurred prior to the CRPD coming into force in the UK) despite the Court of Session judgement being after the CRPD came into force in the UK, and it being an ongoing situation, ie: UK have not outlawed this disability discrimination.

I will not stop fighting this case, as stating that diabetes will result in future sickness absence is direct disability discrimination and 245 million diabetics would not be happy as being classed as a group of individuals who will have future sickness absence, and it is not negated by an alleged redundancy. It is also an injustice for a large employer to turn up at an Employment Tribunal and 'invent' a collective redundancy, commit perjury, alter and fabricate evidence, and pervert the course of justice.

On 25 November 2014 I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Please find the attached letter from your Review Officer, Ms Maloney, in relation to your Case Handling Review.

Regards,

Jacqui Rennie

Corporate Services

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Attached document read:

PIRC

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

Hamilton House

Hamilton Business Park

Caird Park

Hamilton

ML3 0QA

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

25 November 2014

PCCS/00501/12

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I refer to your recent email and letter dated 17 November 2014, in which you outlined your dissatisfaction with Police Scotland's reponse to our recommendation that a further reponse be issued to you with a fuller explanation as to why the information you provided did not support the allegations you made.

While I have noted and considered your comments, I believe that the recommendation has been implemented by the police. This is because the further response letter sent to you by Chief Inspector Hogg explains in greater detail the reasons why the information you provided does not support the allegations you made. Furthermore, Chief Inspector Hogg's reference to the two crimes of perjury and fraud only is accurate, as these crimes cover all of the allegations you initially made.

With reference to the involvement of Chief Inspector Hogg in the implementation of the recommendation, we do not consider there to be a conflict of interest here as your original complaint was not about Chief Inspector Hogg.

Finally, I would refer you to our previous correspondence in which we advised you that we would not be conducting an investigation into this matter. As the recommendation is considered to have been implemented, our involvement in your case is now complete.

Yours sincerely,

Ms D Maloney

Review Officer

Two days later I sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I require my folder of evidence back as soon as possible, as I will be taking this further, and as I am sure you are aware, time-scales and deadlines come into play. I will also be contacting the press, and I should imagine that they will want to see this folder.

I will get someone to pick the folder up from the PIRC Office in Hamilton, the same day that I receive an email from you stating that the folder is now at the PIRC Office in Hamilton.

If there is any undue delay, I will make all relevant parties aware of the undue delay.

Mr McAlpine

I immediately received an automated email reply stating that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner had received this email.

The next day I sent the following email to the International Labour Organization:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you let me know whether the ILO deals with cases of workers discrimination, and if so, where I can get an application form?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

On 1 December 2014 I sent the following email to the International Labour Organization:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been a victim of dreadful disability discrimination.

I was fired from my job because I was diabetic, and because I was diabetic, I was expected to take future sickness absence.

I had only taken 2 days sickness absence in 2 years, the average worker takes 8 days sickness absence each year.

I have taken this case through all domestic courts and to the ECHR and UN, who could not look at the case because the facts of the case happened in 2006, and the UN convention only started in 2008.

Can I raise this case with the ILO?

If not, why?

If not, with who?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the International Labour Organization:

Dear Sir,

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated 1 December 2014.

In this communication, you refer to your professional situation, and while due note has been taken of the content of your message, we regret to inform you that the International Labour Office has no authority to intervene on the issue raised in your communication. The International Labour Organization can only take action on matters related to the application of ratified Conventions by member States and presented by workers' or employers' organizations. You may wish to refer your question to a local or international union.

Best regards,

Secretariat

International Labour Office

Later that morning I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your email dated 27 November 2014. I confirm that I have asked Police Scotland to return your folder of documents to me, and will contact you again as soon as I receive it.

Regards

Debbie Maloney

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

One week later I sent the following email to the OECD Watch organisation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a draft copy of an OECD Case.

I am an individual acting on my own, and this is my first OECD Case.

I would appreciate if OECD Watch could review the draft copy of the case, and notify me of any errors, edits or changes required.

Is there anyone who would provide support in this case, as it is one individual against a multinational enterprise.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Attached document read:

Procedure Invoked: OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Date: 9 December 2014

I. Information on the Complainant

Filled out this section with my contact details.

I, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine HND B.Eng(Hons) MSc, being the sole author of this communication, submit this communication on my own behalf.

II. National Contact Point(s)

OECD

2, rue Andre Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France

Tel.: +33 1 45 24 82 00

Fax: +33 1 45 24 85 00

OECD Washington Center

1776 I Street, N.W., Suite 450, Washington D.C. 20006, USA

Tel.: +1 (202) 785-6323

Fax: +1 (202) 315-2508

E-mail: washington.contact@oecd.org

III. Purpose of Complaint

I, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine HND B.Eng(Hons) MSc (the "Complainant") request that the OECD Headquarters and American National Contact Points ascertain whether Oracle Corporation is adhering to the following sections in the OECD's Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises outlined in section IV and facilitate a resolution.

IV. Potential breaches of the OECD's Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Chapter II, §A2 and Chapter IV, §1d, §6.

V. Background information and interest in the case

The Complainant was an employee of Oracle Corporation from 12 August 1998 to 10 July 2006. The Complainant's interest in the case is that he is the affected party.

VI. Company's Corporate Structure and Location

Oracle Corporation is headquartered at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, California, CA 94065, United States of America. Oracle Corporation operate worldwide, including various regional offices in the United Kingdom, particularly at Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 1RA.

VII. Detailed Information on the Alleged Breaches

Chapter II, §A2 of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises outlines that Multinational Enterprises must respect the human rights of those affected by their activities consistent with the host government's international obligations and commitments.

Chapter IV, §1d of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises outlines that Multinational Enterprises do not discriminate against their employees with respect to employment.

The United Kingdom, at a national level had the Disability Discrimination Act which outlawed disability discrimination in the workplace. The United Kingdom at an international level has signed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to just and favourable conditions of work (Article 23). The United Kingdom has also signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states that discrimination is prohibited on the basis of disability with regard to all matters concerning all forms of employment, including conditions of continuance of employment, and protect the rights of persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, to just and favourable conditions of work (Article 27).

The United States of America, at a national level has the Americans with Disabilities Act which outlaws disability discrimination in the workplace. The United States of America at an international level has signed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to just and favourable conditions of work (Article 23).

Oracle Corporation is not respecting the human rights of employees with diabetes, if they are allowed to use an employees disability (diabetes) to make a stereotypical assumption that disability (diabetes) will result in future sickness absence, and as a result to make the employee redundant (fired, layed off).

 Page 6, from Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine's manager, Philip Snowden (12 April 2006), states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine did not have high blood pressure.

 Page 7, from a senior HR manager, Catherine Temple (13 April 2006), states:

"....which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing"

 Page 8 from Oracle Corporation lawyers admitted that Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine only took 2 days sickness absence in the previous year, the average UK employee takes 8.4 days sickness absence each year (Page 9). Catherine Temple admitted under oath that she did not even check Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine's attendance record.

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine was selected for redundancy the following month, and made redundant (fired, layed off) on 10 July 2006.

It is Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine's opinion that this is in breach of Chapter II, §A2 and/or Chapter IV, §1d of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Chapter IV, §6 of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises outlines that Multinational Enterprises must in considering changes in their operations which would have major effects upon the livelihood of their employees, provide reasonable notice of such changes to the relevant governmental authorities, and co-operate with appropriate governmental authorities so as to mitigate to the maximum extent practicable adverse effects.

The UK government has an HR1 form which is an advanced notification of potential redundancies for employers. It is a statutory requirement and failure to comply with the statutory notification requirements without good cause may result in prosecution and a fine, on summary conviction, of up to £5000, for the company and/or officer of the company.

 Page 10 proves that the UK government did not receive any advanced notification of 121 potential redundancies in 2006, and as such, Oracle Corporation is in breach of Chapter IV, §6 of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

The Insolvency Service is part of the United Kingdom government department "Department for Business, Innovation and Skills". The UK National Contact Point for the OECD is part of the United Kingdom government department "Department for Business, Innovation and Skills". The Complainant currently has international cases outstanding against the United Kingdom Government, and a potential future court case involving the Insolvency Service. This is why I have sent this complaint to the Headquarters of the OECD to deal with, rather than sending it to the UK National Contact Point.

The Complainant requests that the Headquarters of the OECD and the United States of America National Contact Point ascertain whether Oracle Corporation has violated the above mentioned sections in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and facilitate a resolution to the issues raised in this complaint.

VIII. Checklist of supporting documentation

Page 6, email from Phil Snowden on 12 April 2006 at 17:50.

Page 7, email from Catherine Temple on 13 April 2006 at 09:10.

Page 8, extract from document from Oracle Corporation lawyers.

Page 9, extract from ACAS document.

Page 10, email from Insolvency Service 25 January 2008 at 11:50.

On 10 December 2014 I received the following email from the Complaint Procedure of the Human Rights Council at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your messages. The secretariat of the Complaint Procedure of the Human Rights Council acknowledges receipt of the documentation sent by you.

The substance of your communication will be considered based on a rigorous application of the admissibility criteria, as contained in paragraph 87 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1. You will receive notice to inform you whether your communication meets the admissibility criteria based on an initial screening.

However, you should note that, because of the large number of communications received, the procedure for consideration of a communications can take a relatively long time.

For more information on the complaint procedure of the Human Rights Council, see the webpage and the Frequently Asked Questions at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/ComplaintProcedure/Pages/HRCComplaintProcedureIndex.aspx

For further correspondence, please do not hesitate to address your correspondence to the following e-mail address: cp@ohchr.org

Yours sincerely,

The secretariat of the Complaint Procedure of the Human Rights Council

Two days later I received the following email from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Mr McAlpine

I refer to your email of today's date. I first requested that your folder be returned to us by the police on 1 December 2014. I was informed on 5 December by the Professional Standards Department (PSD) in Pitt Street that arrangements had been made for the folder to be returned to them, for onward transmission to us. Since then, I have sent two further emails to PSD enquiring whether the folder is on its way back to us. I have not yet received a response and none of the staff who deal with PIRC matters were available to speak with me when I telephoned the PSD office this morning. I will continue to liaise with PSD in this connection to ensure, as best I can, that the folder is returned to us as soon as possible.

Regards

Debbie Maloney

Review Officer

Police Investigations & Review Commissioner

I immediately sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has now been 15 days since I requested the PIRC to get my folder back from the Police, and I have received nothing, no folder or email.

It is only 27 miles from the PIRC office to the Police office in Kilmarnock, and I received a letter on 5 December 2014 which was sent on 4 December 2014 and had travelled approximately 300 miles.

When can I expect to get my folder back?

Mr McAlpine

I immediately received an automated email reply from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner stating they had received the email.

On 16 December 2014 I received the following email from the American Diabetes Association:

Dear Diabetes Advocate,

No one should be discriminated against because of diabetes.

No one should face diabetes discrimination alone.

As we near the end of 2014, we reflect on the more than 15 years the American Diabetes Association's Legal Advocacy program has been fighting discrimination. Over the years, we've helped more than 35,000 people like you who either faced unfair treatment because of diabetes or who used our tools to prevent discrimination at school, at work, and throughout their lives.

I'm writing because we need your help so that we can continue this vital work.

You know how discrimination happens, but I wanted to share Lauren and Haley's stories because they show how important it is that we continue the fight until all people with diabetes are treated fairly and allowed to pursue whatever job, education, or opportunity they desire.

Lauren Legal Advocacy Success

Lauren is a vibrant 10 year-old with type 1 diabetes. She lives in Arizona where her school has a Kid's Club program before and after school, and during the summer. But Lauren was told she couldn't participate in Kid's Club because she has diabetes.

Haley is a vibrant young woman in her early 20s. She was diagnosed with diabetes in her plebe (freshman) year at the U.S. Naval Academy. The Navy wanted to discharge her because of her diagnosis.

Haley-Legal Advocacy Success

What do these two young women have in common? Both reached out to the American Diabetes Association when they were treated unfairly. Along with their families, both fought to be included in programs that didn't want them simply because they have diabetes. With the help of the Association's Legal Advocacy program, both Lauren and Haley successfully opened the doors that had been closed to people with diabetes. Lauren returned to school this fall, going to Kid's Club like any other kid. And Haley refused to take no for an answer, graduating from the Naval Academy last spring.

But we have more work to do.

Unfortunately, the Navy wouldn't commission Haley because she has diabetes. She had dreamed of serving her country as a Navy Pilot, but she has had to pursue a different path. She now serves by working on a NASA-funded project for the International Space Station. By the time Lauren finishes school, we want to make sure she can be...whatever she wants to be.

We cannot rest until all people with diabetes are treated fairly and can pursue their dreams. We need your help today so we can fight for the future of Lauren, Haley, and the nearly 30 million Americans living with diabetes.

Please click this blue button today. If you act now, every dollar up to $16,000 will be doubled by the Association's Legal Advocacy Subcommittee.

Thank you for your support.

Katie Hathaway

Managing Director

Legal Advocacy

American Diabetes Association

Two days later I sent the following email to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your phone-call (13:25 on 18 December 2014) informing me that you had eventually received my folder of documents.

Someone will pick them up today or tomorrow.

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine

I immediately received an automated email reply from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner stating they had received the email.

On 20 January 2015 I sent the following email to the International Labour Organization:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent you an email listed below around 7 weeks ago.

Can you confirm that you have received this email, and when I can expect a reply?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Later that morning I sent an email to the OECD Watch organisation, an international network of civil society organisations promoting corporate accountability:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I sent you an email listed below six weeks ago, and I have not received a reply.

Did you receive the email, and if so, when can I expect a reply?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Four days later I received the following email from OECD Watch:

Dear Kenneth,

I have not received the email you send six weeks ago. But your email dated 20 January I have received in good order.

I will take a look at your complaint and provide you with my assessment and suggestions for finalizing the complaint.

Unfortunately we are not able to provide support to the case in any other way than through our advice and publish about the complaints that are filed.

Kind regards,

Virginia

On 3 February 2015 I sent the following email to both the Complaints Procedure and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a letter "CRPD letter 3 February 2015" and some referenced attachments.

If you cannot read or open any of these attachments, I will be happy to resend.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Attached document read:

Mr K.R. McAlpine

3 February 2015

Communication Number: 6/2011

OHCHR

Petitions Team

Office of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights

UNOG-OHCHR

1211 Geneva 10

Switzerland

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have been in contact with your office regarding communication number 6/2011 of the CRPD, and the aftermath of the dreadful decision.

I was recently on your website comparing other decisions against communication number 6/2011 when I came across communication number 5/2011 which was published in October 2014. I noticed at the bottom of page 8 of the decision on communication number 5/2011, it clearly states:

The facts in the present communication concerning the relevance of the judgement issued after the entry into force of the Convention and the Optional Protocol for Sweden differ from the facts in communication No. 6/2011, McAlpine v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, decision adopted on 28 September 2012. In the latter case, the decision of the Court of Session taken after the entry into force of both instruments for the United Kingdom dealt only with the existence of errors of law and the Court did not examine the claim of discrimination as such.

I have attached to the email I sent you the pdf "Communication Number 5-2011 Decision" which is a full copy of the decision on communication number 5/2011 downloaded from your website, and which contains the stated paragraph above.

This statement is fundamentally wrong, and is completely false.

In my case, communication number 6/2011, I decided to reread the submission made by the United Kingdom, which is attached at the end of this document. At no point whatsoever did the United Kingdom state that the Court of Session dealt only with the existence of errors of law and did not examine the claim of discrimination as such.

It must only have been the OHCHR or CRPD Committee that has reached this fundamentally wrong and completely false untruth.

I will now prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Court of Session did examine the claim of discrimination.

I have attached an email "RE: Yourself ag a Decision of the EAT XA165/08", that is an undisputed record of my correspondence with the Court of Session, and which contains the document "Court of Session – Appeal Print" as an attachment. In this attachment it contains the official appeal made to the Court of Session, and shows that the Court of Session did examine the claim of discrimination, for example, at point 5.3.

I have also attached a witness statement signed by three witnesses who attended the Court of Session main hearing stating that the Court of Session did examine the claim of discrimination.

This is now undeniable evidence that the Court of Session did examine the claim of discrimination.

I now want the OHCHR to perform the following actions without any further delay:

1: To reconsider the decision made in communication number 6/2011 to throw out the communication ratione temporis because the Court of Session did not examine the claim of discrimination according to the OHCHR or CRPD Committee.

2: To perform a full investigation into who, within the OHCHR or CRPD Committee, reached the decision that the Court of Session did not examine the claim of discrimination, and a detailed explanation why they reached this decision, when it was a decision not open to them to reach (none of the parties made this argument).

3: To deliver appropriate punishment to any persons found guilty of any form of bias, misconduct or corruption.

If no action is taken regarding any of the three points listed above, I will take this matter higher within the United Nations, and seek legal advice on legal redress.

If I have not received a reply to this letter within three months, I will take this as no action on any of the three points listed above.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Kenneth R McAlpine

I immediately received an automated email reply from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Return Receipt

Your document: Communication Number 6/2011

was received by: Petitions OHCHR/OHCHR

at: 03.02.2015 14:51:52

On 9 February 2015 I received the following email reply from the International Labour Organization:

Dear Sir,

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated 20 January 2015.

In this communication, you refer to your professional situation, and while due note has been taken of the content of your message, we regret to inform you that the International Labour Office has no authority to intervene on the issue raised in your communication. The International Labour Organization can only take action on matters related to the application of ratified Conventions by member States and presented by workers' or employers' organizations. You may wish to refer your question to a local or international union.

Best regards,

Secretariat

International Labour Standards Department

International Labour Office

Nine days later I sent the following email to the OECD Watch organisation:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Any word on when I can expect your review of my complaint?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Nine days later I sent the following email to the Scottish Trades Union Congress:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been contacted by the International Labour Office (ILO) regarding disability discrimination that happened to me in the workplace. The ILO have stated that they can only take action on matters raised by workers organisations.

Can you submit my disability discrimination case against the convention, I have done all the work and it is ready to be submitted, just needs to be sent by you.

Thanks,

Kenneth McAlpine

The next day I received the following email from the Scottish Trades Union Congress:

Dear Kenneth

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, we do not have remit to submit or represent on individual cases and function as a signposting service. This would have to be done by your own union. However, please contact the Equality Advisory and Support

https://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/ Tel: 0808 800 0082 who will be able to advise you of your next steps.

Kind regards

Zaffir

Later that day I sent the following email to the Equality Advisory Support Service:

Your question has been received. You should expect a response from us within 5 working days.

Question Reference #150219-000074

Summary: Dear Sir/Madam, I have been referred to you by the Scottish Trade Union Congress....

Date Created: 19/02/2015 15:04

Last Updated: 19/02/2015 15:04

Status: Unresolved

Incident Country:

Let Us Know: No

Your Rights: Disability Discrimination

Discussion Thread

Customer By Web Form (Kenneth McAlpine) 19/02/2015 15:04

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been referred to you by the Scottish Trade Union Congress.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have been contacted by the International Labour Office (ILO) regarding disability discrimination that happened to me in the workplace. The ILO have stated that they can only take action on matters raised by workers organisations.

Can you submit my disability discrimination case against the convention, I have done all the work and it is ready to be submitted, just needs to be sent by you.

If not, why not, and who can?

Thanks,

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

Around 21 February 2015 I received the following letter from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

PALAIS DES NATIONS

1211 GENEVA 10

SWITZERLAND

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR (GEN) CE/APP/mbe 6/2011

19 February 2015

Dear Mr McAlpine,

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 3 February 2015. In this letter, you question again the decision of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in communication 6/2011, as you have already done periodically since October 2012.

As explained to you in previous replies that have been sent from the Secretariat on behalf and in consultation with the Committee, Committee's decisions cannot be appealed, unless they relates to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies that are later exhausted. This is not the case of the decision that was adopted in communication 6/2011.

We understand your frustration, but we hereby reiterate that no element of the Committee's reasoning and interpretation, adopted by a group of independent expert in a plenary session, can be reviewed.

Please note that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the United Nations Secretariat are unable to assist you any further in the circumstances of your case and will not reply anymore to the letters you will send on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

The Petitions and Inquiries Section

Chapter 15

On 20 February 2015 I sent the following email to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Office, Scotland's prosecution service:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a document outlining alleged serious crimes.

I now trust that you will look at this case, and please do not hesitate to contact me as I have much more evidence regarding this case.

Thanks,

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine

Attached document read:

Mr K.R. McAlpine

20 February 2015

The Crown Office,

25 Chambers Street,

Edinburgh

EH1 1LA

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) to investigate Police Scotland.

I have already complained to Police Scotland regarding this matter, and this matter was referred to the PIRC who found in my favour on all points. However, it is entirely unclear whether Police Scotland have even investigated the alleged serious crimes, and if they have, why this evidence has not been passed to the COPFS.

I believe that the overwhelming evidence clearly shows that misconduct in a public office has taken place, because the definition of misconduct in public office states:

"It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office."

If Police Scotland have failed to investigate these serious crimes, then it is a failure to act that constitutes the duties of that office.

If Police Scotland have investigated these serious crimes and not passed the hard factual evidence clearly showing that these crimes have been committed to the COPFS, then it is a failure to act that constitutes the duties of that office.

This has continued to result in perverting the course of justice.

It could be one of a number of possible motives which could include covering for colleagues, discrimination and/or gross neglect of duty.

Synopsis

In 2006, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine was made redundant from Oracle Corporation UK Ltd. The case was taken to an Employment Tribunal, and during evidence discovery two emails stated that because Mr McAlpine was diabetic he was going to be off sick a lot in the future. This is disability discrimination as it is a stereotypical assumption that disability equates to future sickness absence. Mr McAlpine had only taken two days sickness absence in the previous two years, the average employee in the UK takes eight days sickness absence each year.

It was stated during the Employment Tribunal that a collective redundancy of 121 employees had taken place in 2006 (Page 5,  paragraph 161), and that Mr McAlpine was one of the 121 employees made redundant, hence there was no discrimination. The Employment Tribunal believed this story and dismissed the case.

During subsequent appeals it became apparent that no collective redundancy of 121 employees had taken place in 2006, and this was verified by the Insolvency Service, a department of the UK government (Page 7). It is a statutory offence not to notify the UK government of more than 20 redundancies in an HR1 form, explained in this link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/373244/HR1_11_11_14.pdf

Some of the fabricated and altered evidence presented at the Employment Tribunal was simply a disgrace to justice, an example of which is the handwritten surname and employee number of Mr McAlpine on the alleged collective redundancy spreadsheet for the collective redundancy of 121 employees that never happened in 2006 (Page 6).

This is only the tip of the iceberg, and Mr McAlpine tried to report the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud to the police on four separate occasions, only to be told that it was a civil matter and the police could not investigate it.

It was only in 2012 that I became aware of a manager who had been jailed for four months for forging a signature on a contract at an Employment Tribunal. This led to a complaint to the Police Professional Standards and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, but has since resulted in nothing happening.

The PIRC decision can be found at:

http://www.pirc.scotland.gov.uk/assets/0001/1089/501-12_CHR.pdf

The last letter from Police Scotland, in reply to the PIRC recommendation, can be found at pages 8 to 10.

I further complained to the PIRC because the same officer who was in charge of the division being investigated (Chief Inspector), had now become Detective Chief Inspector with responsibility for considering and implementing PIRC recommendations. In essence, this has now went beyond the police investigating themselves, as the same officer is investigating himself.

I must also deal with a number of inconsistencies in the last letter from Police Scotland on pages 8 to 10.

"The allegations refer to alleged failure to identify and investigate reported crimes initially identified by you as Perjury and Fraud." -Page 9

This is knowingly false, as it is clearly stated in the PIRC decision listed above at the top of page 3:

"Despite repeated attempts to report the matters of failing to identify and properly investigate the serious crimes of perjury, altered evidence, fabricated evidence, witness collusion and fraud to the police, they have failed to investigate the matters arising from the employment tribunal."

"proposed" -Page 9

Police Scotland seem to believe that because a couple of witnesses refer in their witness statements to the collective redundancy as being 'proposed', that these witnesses do not commit to the collective redundancy taking place. Again this is knowingly false, because these witnesses use proper grammar when referring to a collective redundancy in February that is expected to take place later that year. It is beyond dispute that the Employment Tribunal believed that a collective redundancy of 121 employees took place in 2006 (Employment Tribunal judgement (Page 5  paragraph 161)).

"however there is nothing evident which would indicate that there is false representation, false conduct or an intention to deceive within any of this documentation." -Page 10

This is quite frankly a disgrace to justice and policing. The evidence I have provided in this document alone 100% proves perjury, altering and fabricating evidence and perverting the course of justice. Perjury and perverting the course of justice because there was no collective redundancy of 121 employees in 2006, but the employer's witnesses convinced the Employment Tribunal that there was a collective redundancy of 121 employees in 2006, that is a fact that is reflected in the Employment Tribunal judgement (Page 5  paragraph 161).

Altering and fabricating evidence because the alleged spreadsheet (Reduction In Force, RIF list or redundancy list,  Page 6) has been clearly altered to show Mr McAlpine's name and employee id on it, and it is fabricated because there was no collective redundancy of 121 employees in 2006.

I trust that the COPFS will now deal with this as a serious criminal complaint.

I also believe that it is in the public interest to make all this information available if no-one faces justice in this complaint.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine

Later that same day I received the following email reply from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Office:

Good afternoon

I have passed your e-mail and attachment to our Complaints Against the Police Department.

Kind regards

National Enquiry Point

That evening I received the following email from the Equality Advisory Support Service:

Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support centre. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it within the next 30 days.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

Subject

Dear Sir/Madam, I have ben referred to you by the Scottish Trade Union Congress....

Discussion Thread

Response Via Email (Drew Hall) 20/02/2015 18:53

Date: 20/02/2015

Reference Number: 150219-000074

Subject: Your Enquiry to the Equality Advisory Support Service

Dear Kenneth McAlpine,

Thank you for contacting our service.

I understand that you were referred to us by the Scottish Trade Union Congress. You have explained that you would like support in submitting a case of discrimination against the convention.

Our service is designed to provide advice and guidance on the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. This is with the intent of providing with the relevant information so that you can take action as an individual. Unfortunately, we would not be able to offer you any legal support.

Disability is one of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act. Disability discrimination is something that we are able to advise on and if you would like to explain some of your issue we will be happy to offer any relevant advice in hope that this supports you.

If you would like to take action I would advise that you look to take further action you would have to discuss your case with a lawyer or solicitor.

There are various law centres which you may be able to some free legal advice. Additionally you may wish to speak with the Disability Law Service.

Law Centres Network: 02036 37 1330

Disability Law Service: 02077919800

If you have any further enquiries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards

Drew Hall

Equality Advisory Support Service

I immediately sent the following email to the Scottish Trades Union Congress:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have contacted the EAS as you stated in your last email below.

They were unable to help.

As I stated previously, I require a Union or worker organisation to submit my disability discrimination case against the convention. I am sure that this could be done anonymously by the Union or worker organisation, and once submitted I would be the contact point, and there would be no further involvement by the Union or worker organisation.

I can check that this would be okay with the ILO.

Can you provide me with the name of a Union or worker organisation.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Three days later I received the following email reply from the Scottish Trades Union Congress:

Dear Mr McAlpine

Apologies that the EASS were unable to help. You could then, try to contact the EHRC directly on www.equalityhumanrights.com to see whether they would be able to help. As I said, the STUC and STUC projects do not represent individual cases. However if you would like to supply us with your Employer and the sector we will can tell you who you're union is. However most unions will not take on a case on behalf of a non-member.

Kind regards

Zaffir Hakim

I then sent the following email to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to make a complaint against the petitions department and the CRPD.

Who should I complain to, Ibrahim Salama or someone else, and what are the contact details?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

I then sent another email to the Scottish Trades Union Congress:

Dear Zaffir,

Thank you for your last email.

The EHRC are not a union, so would be unable to submit a case to the ILO.

I am not important in this case. The offending emails stated that diabetics would be off sick a lot in the future and made a diabetic redundant because of that reason.

There are 240 million diabetics worldwide, so I would imagine that most/all of your unions have members who are diabetic, and would be willing to help submit a case to the ILO on their members behalf.

If they do not, this could be happening, or has already happened to union members, that is why the ILO have treaties to stop employers doing this to their employees.

Can you ask your unions if anyone would at least submit this case to the ILO?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

The next day I sent an email to the Complaint Procedure at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please add the attached reply from The Petitions and Inquiries Section to my CP case that you are currently considering.

Please also treat my email of 2 February 2015 including attachments, and this email and attachment, as further evidence of violations of human rights, particularly Article 10 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as I have not had a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal when the decision of the CRPD Committee is that disability discrimination was not examined by the Court of Session, when it clearly was, and that this decision was not open to the CRPD Committee to reach, as the UK had not argued in their submissions on admissibility that the Court of Session had not examined discrimination.

Thanks,

Mr K McAlpine

Attached document read:

UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

PALAIS DES NATIONS

1211 GENEVA 10

SWITZERLAND

REFERENCE: G/SO 214/48 GBR (GEN) CE/APP/mbe 6/2011

19 February 2015

Dear Mr McAlpine,

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 3 February 2015. In this letter, you question again the decision of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in communication 6/2011, as you have already done periodically since October 2012.

As explained to you in previous replies that have been sent from the Secretariat on behalf and in consultation with the Committee, Committee's decisions cannot be appealed, unless they relates to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies that are later exhausted. This is not the case of the decision that was adopted in communication 6/2011.

We understand your frustration, but we hereby reiterate that no element of the Committee's reasoning and interpretation, adopted by a group of independent expert in a plenary session, can be reviewed.

Please note that the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the United Nations Secretariat are unable to assist you any further in the circumstances of your case and will not reply anymore to the letters you will send on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

The Petitions and Inquiries Section

Two days later I sent the following email to the American Diabetes Association:

Dear Katie,

Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you regarding diabetes discrimination, but I fell and broke my wrist at the start of this year.

I have been type 1 diabetic for around 50 years.

I have been fighting diabetes discrimination for 8 years and this is still ongoing.

In 2006, I was fired from my job from a large multinational American corporation. They stated in an email that because I was diabetic I was going to be off sick a lot in the future. In the next email the senior HR manager stated that because I was going to be off sick a lot in the future, to sack me. This was done the following month. The corporation admitted in the following court case that I had only taken 2 days sickness absence in the previous 2 years, the average employee takes 8 days sickness absence a year, and that they hadn't even checked my attendance records before firing me.

If that wasn't bad enough, none of the Courts or appellant Courts found that this was discrimination.

Why should this bother you?

Employers and Courts believe that diabetes equals future sickness absence because very few people or organisations are doing anything about it.

Why should you care?

This was an American corporation stating that diabetes (inclusive term for all type 1 and type 2 diabetics worldwide) will result in prolonged periods of sickness absence in the future.

What can you do?

I am going to throw down the gauntlet to you, I suspect you will do absolutely nothing because I suspect your action alert on diabetes discrimination is not genuine, prove me wrong.

This case was at the United Nations in late 2012 and 2013. The United Nations could not review the case because they made a mistake by assuming that the last appellant court did not review the discrimination. They are unable to review cases. However, anyone who is an affected party can bring their own case to the United Nations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. You do not need a lawyer to write the petition, this could be done by ADA. You are an affected party because the term diabetes was used, inclusive of all diabetics worldwide. This is also still ongoing discrimination as it has not been outlawed by any court or the United Nations.

So, are you going to stick your head in the sand, or are you going to, free of charge, be true to your words "No one should be discriminated against because of diabetes" and "No one should face diabetes discrimination alone" and lodge a communication/petition with the United Nations?

Thanks,

Mr Kenneth McAlpine

On 4 March 2015 I sent the following email to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find attached a complaint form for the OECD.

Thanks,

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine

Attached document read:

Procedure Invoked: OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Date: 4 March 2015

I. Information on the Complainant

Filled in this section with my contact details, and finished with:

I, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine HND B.Eng(hons) MSc, being the sole author of this communication, submit this communication on my own behalf.

II. National Contact Point(s)

OECD

2, rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France

Tel.: +33 1 45 24 82 00

Fax: +33 1 45 24 85 00

OECD Washington Center

1776 I Street, N.W., Suite 450, Washington D.C. 20006, USA

Tel.: +1 (202) 785-6323

Fax: +1 (202) 315-2508

E-mail: washington.contact@oecd.org

III. Purpose of Complaint

I, Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine HND B.Eng(Hons) MSc (the "Complainant") request that the OECD Headquarters and American National Contact Points ascertain whether Oracle Corporation is adhering to the following sections in the OECD's Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises outlined in section IV and facilitate a resolution.

IV. Potential breaches of the OECD's Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Chapter II, §A2 and Chapter IV, §1d, §6.

V. Background information and interest in the case

The Complainant was an employee of Oracle Corporation from 12 August 1998 to 10 July 2006. The Complainant's interest in the case is that he is the affected party.

VI. Company's Corporate Structure and Location

Oracle Corporation is headquartered at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, California, CA 94065, United States of America. Oracle Corporation operate worldwide, including various regional offices in the United Kingdom, particularly at Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 1RA.

VII. Detailed Information on the Alleged Breaches

Chapter II, §A2 of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises outlines that Multinational Enterprises must respect the human rights of those affected by their activities consistent with the host government's international obligations and commitments.

Chapter IV, §1d of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises outlines that Multinational Enterprises do not discriminate against their employees with respect to employment.

The United Kingdom, at a national level had the Disability Discrimination Act which outlawed disability discrimination in the workplace. The United Kingdom at an international level has signed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to just and favourable conditions of work (Article 23). The United Kingdom has also signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states that discrimination is prohibited on the basis of disability with regard to all matters concerning all forms of employment, including conditions of continuance of employment, and protect the rights of persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, to just and favourable conditions of work (Article 27).

The United States of America, at a national level has the Americans with Disabilities Act which outlaws disability discrimination in the workplace. The United States of America at an international level has signed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to just and favourable conditions of work (Article 23).

Oracle Corporation is not respecting the human rights of employees with diabetes, if they are allowed to use an employees disability (diabetes) to make a stereotypical assumption that disability (diabetes) will result in future sickness absence, and as a result to make the employee redundant (fired, layed off).

 Page 6, from Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine's manager, Philip Snowden (12 April 2006), states:

"the combination of diabetes and high blood pressure - which could result in a prolonged period of time off due to illness."

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine did not have high blood pressure.

 Page 7, from a senior HR manager, Catherine Temple (13 April 2006), states:

"....which might lead him to go offsick again.

It might be more appropriate to action redundancy from the role he is currently doing"

 Page 8 from Oracle Corporation lawyers admitted that Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine only took 2 days sickness absence in the previous year, the average UK employee takes 8 days sickness absence each year (Page 9). Catherine Temple admitted under oath that she did not even check Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine's attendance record.

Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine was selected for redundancy the following month, and made redundant (fired, layed off) on 10 July 2006.

It is Mr Kenneth Robert McAlpine's opinion that this is in breach of Chapter II, §A2 and/or Chapter IV, §1d of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Chapter IV, §6 of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises outlines that Multinational Enterprises must in considering changes in their operations which would have major effects upon the livelihood of their employees, provide reasonable notice of such changes to the relevant governmental authorities, and co-operate with appropriate governmental authorities so as to mitigate to the maximum extent practicable adverse effects.

The UK government has an HR1 form which is an advanced notification of potential redundancies for employers. It is a statutory requirement and failure to comply with the statutory notification requirements without good cause may result in prosecution and a fine, on summary conviction, of up to £5000, for the company and/or officer of the company.

 Page 10 proves that the UK government did not receive any advanced notification of 121 potential redundancies in 2006, and as such, Oracle Corporation is in breach of Chapter IV, §6 of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

The Insolvency Service is part of the United Kingdom government department "Department for Business, Innovation and Skills". The UK National Contact Point for the OECD is part of the United Kingdom government department "Department for Business, Innovation and Skills". The Complainant currently has international cases outstanding against the United Kingdom Government, and a potential future court case involving the Insolvency Service. This is why I have sent this complaint to the Headquarters of the OECD to deal with, rather than sending it to the UK National Contact Point.

The Complainant requests that the Headquarters of the OECD and the United States of America National Contact Point ascertain whether Oracle Corporation has violated the above mentioned sections in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and facilitate a resolution to the issues raised in this complaint.

VIII. Checklist of supporting documentation

Page 6, email from Phil Snowden on 12 April 2006 at 17:50.

Page 7, email from Catherine Temple on 13 April 2006 at 09:10.

Page 8, extract from document from Oracle Corporation lawyers.

Page 9, extract from ACAS document.

Page 10, email from Insolvency Service 25 January 2008 at 11:50.

Later that same day I received the following email reply from the Washington Office of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Dear McAlpine,

Thank you for contacting the OECD Washington Center. The OECD does not directly handle complaints related to the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. However, we are happy to direct you to someone that can assist you.

Since your complaint is in regards to a British corporation, you can direct your complaint and follow-up questions to the UK National Contact Point:

http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/ncps/unitedkingdom.htm

A complete list of National Contact Points is available to you as well:

http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/ncps

For more about the OECD's work on Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, please visit:

http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/

Regards,

OECD Washington Center

I immediately sent the following email reply to the Washington Office of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your last email.

As stated in the attached document at page 2:

"Oracle Corporation is headquartered at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, California, CA 94065, United States of America."

As stated in the attached document at page 4:

"The Complainant requests that the Headquarters of the OECD and the United States of America National Contact Point ascertain whether Oracle Corporation has violated the above mentioned sections in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and facilitate a resolution to the issues raised in this complaint."

The following website also states:

http://oecdwatch.org/filing-complaints/Eligibility%20of%20a%20complaint

"Where to file a complaint?

In principle, a complaint should be filed at the NCP of the country where the alleged problems caused by the company are occurring (i.e. the host country). If the host country does not have an NCP (because it does not adhere to the Guidelines), the complaint should be submitted to the NCP in the country where the company has its headquarters (i.e. the home country). In some instances, the host and home countries both have NCPs. Consideration of where to submit the complaint then depends on a number of factors, such as the goal of the complaint and whether your preferred outcome is locally-focused or aims to affect change at the headquarters level. In circumstances where you think a company's headquarters is partially responsible for breaches made by a subsidiary company, OECD Watch advises filing the complaint at both home and host country NCPs. In such cases, NCPs are expected to collaborate in handling the case."

I believe that Oracle Corporations headquarters in America are responsible for hiring senior employees in Oracle Corporation UK Limited, and as such are directly responsible for the conduct of these employees and subordinates. As such, I believe that Oracle Corporations headquarters in America are partially responsible, and I wish to affect change at the headquarters level of this corporation.

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

On 21 March 2015 I sent the following email to the United Kingdom Office of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Hi,

I have an application for OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises which I have to send to the OECD headquarters which I believe is in Paris. I cannot find an email address to send the application to, can you supply me the email address that I need to send the application for OECD Guidelines for

Multinational Enterprises to?

Thanks,

Mr McAlpine

Two days later I received the following email from the United Kingdom Office for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

Thanks for your email. Apologies, but I'm not sure what you mean by "an application":

If you are referring to a complaint that a multinational enterprise has not acted consistently with the OECD Guidelines, you will need to address this to the National Contact Point (NCP) of the country in which the events you're complaining about have taken place or – if this country does not have an NCP – to the NCP of the country where the multinational is based. The OECD itself does not consider complaints: it is the responsibility of each country that adheres to the Guidelines to set up an NCP to consider complaints against companies operating or based in that country.

If you do not want to raise a complaint but want to bring another matter to the attention of the part of the OECD that manages the Guidelines, I suggest you send an email to investment@oecd.org , marking it for the attention of the Secretariat to the Working Party on Responsible Business Conduct.

You can also find more information about the OECD Guidelines here: http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/

Please don't hesitate to come back to me if you don't find anything helpful in/via the above.

Regards,

Liz Napier

Liz Napier

UK National Contact Point OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Later that same day I sent the following email reply to the United Kingdom Office of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Liz,

Thank you for your last email.

I do wish to raise a complaint concerning the OECD Guidelines, but I must contact the headquarters of the OECD regarding the complexities of the complaint in order to start off on the right foot.

Can you provide me with an email address for the OECD headquarters regarding queries on complaints?

Thanks,

Kenneth McAlpine

I quickly received the following email reply from the United Kingdom Office for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Dear Mr McAlpine,

I suggest that you contact the head of the Responsible Business Conduct Unit:

Cristina Tebar Less

Lead Manager/Responsible Business Conduct Unit

Cristina.tebar-less@oecd.org

Liz

Liz Napier

UK National Contact Point OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

I quickly sent the following email to Cristina Tebar-Less at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:

Dear Cristina,

I am sending you this complaint against the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

I am a resident of the UK, but I cannot send it to the UK NCP because I have an international case against the UK Government who run the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I have a criminal case pending against a part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

I have sent a copy of this complaint to the USA NCP in Washington, as the multinational company has its headquarters in the USA.

Can you therefore make sure that this complaint is managed between the headquarters and the Washington NCP.

Thanks and regards,

Kenneth McAlpine

Attached was the OECD Complaint that I sent on 4 March 2015.

I immediately received the following automated email reply:

I am on mission until 25 March with only occasional access to my emails. I will try to reply as soon as possible.

Note From The Publisher

Hello, this is Nostaple Limited. Thank you for reading this book. Your support means a lot to us.

No spelling mistakes and grammatical errors have been corrected in any of the emails or letters contained within this book.

You can play a part, in order to help fight discrimination, by spreading the word to any diabetics you may know, that this series of books exist.

If you enjoyed the book and found it interesting and informative, we would appreciate it greatly if you would take a few moments to post a review.

Once again, our sincere thanks

Nostaple Limited

Other books by Nostaple Limited:

The Justify This series:

Justify This 2006 - 2007

Justify This 2007 - 2008

Justify This 2008 - 2010

Justify This 2010 - 2011

Justify This 2011 - 2015

