A north-east pervert snared by a vigilante group posing as a 14-year-old girl has avoided jail because he wasn’t talking to a real child.
Barrie Robertson contacted what he thought was a 14-year-old girl called “Sky” on social media, but who was actually a member of a paedophile-hunting vigilante group.
He was snared in a sting last September by Child Protectors Scotland.
Over a period of four days, Robertson sent sexual messages to “Sky”, and even asked her to send him images of her naked.
The 37-year-old also sent her a sexual image of male genitals.
He admitted attempting to communicate indecently with a child, by sending a person pretending to be a 14-year-old child sexual messages and requesting sexual images of them.
And Robertson also admitted a second charge of attempting to cause a child to view a sexual image, by sending the person pretending to be a “Sky” an image of male genitals.
The offences took place between September 22 and 25 last year.
And Robertson also admitted a further offence of failing to provide police with certain information within a period of three days, part of the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act.
Yesterday Robertson appeared in the dock at Aberdeen Sheriff Court to be sentenced over the matter.
Defence agent Dylan Middleton said an increase is his client’s offending coincided with Robertson’s “increased struggle with his alcoholism”.
He said Robertson suffered an “overwhelming feeling of shame” in relation to the offences.
Mr Middleton said his client was “unsure whether the person he was speaking to was in fact 14”, but accepted his behaviour was “completely unacceptable”.
Sheriff Philip Mann told Robertson, of Foudland Crescent in Insch: “There’s no doubt these are serious offences.
“I have to take into account the person who was on the receiving end of your communications was not actually a 14-year-old girl.
“I don’t think any psychological trauma will have been caused. If it had been a 14-year-old girl I don’t think I would have hesitated in sending you to custody.”
He ordered Robertson to be supervised for two years and made him subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act for the same period.
The sheriff also imposed a number of conduct requirements related to his use of electronic devices and alcohol problem.
Fiscal depute Susan Love previously narrated a string of sickening messages Robertson sent to “Sky”.
The court heard Robertson later told police he was an “alcoholic” and “does not know the difference between right and wrong when he is intoxicated”.
He also stated he was not attracted to children.
A PERVERT former teacher and Scout master has been jailed for 14 years for abusing two teenage boys.
Russell Howard-Tricker, 77, groomed and abused a boy for several years when he worked as a teacher at Colchester school in the 1960s.
He also took pictures of a teenager he knew through the scouts naked in a caravan in St Osyth and abused him during the same time period.
Howard-Tricker, of no fixed abode in the UK, admitted two counts of indecent assault but was convicted of two more and committing buggery after a trial at Chelmsford Crown Court.
Judge Christopher Morgan said the offences would have been treated as rape if they happened today before jailing the paedophile.
“In both cases you have contributed significantly to the difficulties they have experienced during the course of their lives as teenagers and throughout their adult life.”
Speaking after the hearing, the first victim said: “I was groomed and sexually abused from the age of 13.
“In the years since, I have felt shame, self-doubt, isolation and depression.
“I was encouraged by seeing other cases in the media to finally face up to getting the help I needed, and from that came a successful prosecution.
“This has given me a sense of closure.
“I am grateful that a dangerous paedophile has been prevented from harming others in the way he harmed me.”
The second victim became dependent on alcohol and suffered depression after being abused by Howard-Tricker.
He said: “I would drink up to ten pints a day at the worst points and my dependency went on for decades.
“It led to me getting a drink drive conviction, to losing my job after that, to eventually my first wife leaving me.
“I felt degraded by what Tricker did to me and felt I could never tell anyone so I just locked all my feelings away.”
During the police investigation, officers found out Howard-Tricker was living in Prague.
He was arrested at Birmingham Airport on December 21, 2018 and later charged.
Investigating officer DC Rachel Evemy, of the North Child Abuse Investigation Team, said: “I want to commend the victims for their bravery in coming forward after suffering the trauma of Howard-Tricker’s abuse all those decades ago.
“He was someone they trusted and who had a duty of care for them, and he abused that trust in the most horrendous way.
“This case highlights the long lasting impact that child sexual abuse has on its survivors.
“But it also shows how justice can still be achieved and I hope today’s sentence will help his victims move forward.
“I urge anyone who has been sexually abused to please report it, no matter how long ago it took place.
“We will take your report seriously, investigate and help ensure you receive the right support.
|DOMAIN||NUMBER OF ATTACK ATTEMPTS|
Supporters of Hollie have contacted me today to express their outrage of Elish Angiolini being the guest of Kirsty Young on Radio 4`s Desert Island Discs yesterday. What is worse, Angiolini was uncritically portrayed as a noble champion of rape victims.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Radio 4 is repeating the programme on Friday morning at nine o`clock.
One can only assume that the BBC has carried out no meaningful research into this individual. If they had, even putting Hollie`s case to one side, it would have soon discovered that Angiolini has been severely criticised by the most senior members of the legal profession on a wide range of highly contentious issues. The BBC must have even overlooked its own televised broadcast on 7th July 2011, with the eminent Ian Hamilton QC. Around two minutes into the programme, Mr Hamilton describes Scotland`s human rights record as appalling, identifying primarily Angiolini as being responsible for this shocking state of affairs.
I have lodged a complaint with Sue Noakes at Radio 4, who`s number is 08455 191471.
No doubt, Jimmy Savile would have received a similarly sympathetic coverage from the BBC had he still been alive.
Meanwhile, Angiolini is to face cross-examination at Tim Rustige`s trial commencing 24th February in Aberdeen. Alex Salmond`s involvement in Hollie`s case by twice breaking the law in defiance of the Information Commissioner`s queries about the case will be brought up during the proceedings.
Rusty has, like me, been denied the jury trial he should have had, so that the identify of the presiding sheriff will be crucial, in the unlikely event of Rusty actually receiving a fair trial, As you know, in my trial, Edward Bowen concealed his ten-year relationship with cited defence witness Angiolini for the entire duration of the trial. Also, any sheriff who`s post has been recommended by Alex Salmond must be subject to a potential concern over conflict of interest, especially as the First Minister and
Angiolini share the same lawyer. It is also worth mentioning that the identity of the mysterious sheriff who was “taken ill” at the last minute before the initial trial date of 4th November has never been revealed – that is, if he ever existed at all.
It is truly bizarre that Rusty, who`s organisation Prisoners of Conscience International, has gallantly fought for human rights against the Marcos regime in the Philipines, to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma and for Nelson Mandela against the apartheid regime in South Africa, should now face persecution in Britain, by the similarly corrupt Salmond regime, purely on the say-so of the person most responsible for Scottish human rights abuses – Elish Angiolini!
Please stand by Rusty in any way that you can, as you bravely did for me and for Hollie.
It is worth looking at recent editions of Diary of Injustice, the Scottish Law Reporter, the Scottish Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Herald in reporting the extraordinarily evasive conduct of the Lord President, Lord Gill.
A formal petition, brought about by Peter Cherbi, has been accepted by the Scottish Parliament with a special committee set up and having the full support of the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Ms Moi Ali.
One of the main purposes of the petition was merely to ensure that members of the Scottish judiciary should have a duty to publicly disclose information about their interests that may be perceived to have a bearing on their impartiality when adjudicating cases.
The Lord President has reacted in a most unusual way, by not only flatly dismissing the proposals, but also even refusing to face questions from a properly constituted committee made up of representatives elected by the people of Scotland.
The Lord President`s position seems to be that he regards all his judicial colleagues to possess such a high level of integrity that it is entirely unwelcome and unnecessary to hold them to public account in any way. In my experience alone, I can assure him that Sheriff Patrick Davies, Lord Bannatyne and most certainly Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen fall well below the standards to which the Lord President refers. And does the Lord President think it appropriate that six of the colleagues he is trying to protect are members of the Violate Club?
You will probably be aware that Bill Roache, the Coronation Street actor, has been found not guilty of the serious sexual criminal charges laid against him. It is difficult to comment when not being involved in the proceedings, but it does appear that justice has finally been done and has seen to have been done. However, can anyone explain why Mr Roache was questioned, arrested, charged and brought before the court on the simple basis of verbal allegations from thirty or so years ago when Denis and Greg Mackie, with overwhelming impartial expert witness evidence against them, including that from the police and fully accepted by the Criminal Injury Compensation Authority, are never even questioned by the police?
Finally, you may recall that I have lodged a formal complaint to Cheshire Police about Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen`s racially discriminatory outburst at my trial after I had challenged him over the concealing of his ten-year relationship with cited defence witness Elish Angiolini from the court and from the defence. Even worse, Bowen, with others, is responsible for subsequently conspiring falsify solemn court audio evidence in order to delete the discriminatory remark. There is absolutely no question that Bowen has committed a criminal offence.
Despite the fact that the inaccurate transcript taken from the audio was produced by a Gloucestershire firm, Cheshire Police has decided that the matter must be dealt with by Police Scotland. Many of you who were present and heard Bowen`s comments that have now been omitted from the records have kindly offered to send me statements to confirm what they heard Bowen say. I would be most grateful if those of you who made the offer would be so good as to send me their brief witness statements. It is not required to comment on any other aspect of the case nor to offer an opinion. Just what you heard is enough and is all that is desired.
Thank you in advance for your courage and integrity.
The last post has raised a great deal of interest and understandably so.
Here are further details of the status of some members of this exclusive and illustrious club, that also provides life-size dolls of children for the “entertainment” of these people.
It makes you sick, doesn`t it?
Four Sheriffs and partners
Two ex-partners of Sheriffs
Two High Court judges and partners
Two Procurator Fiscals and partners
Six ex -partners of Procurator Fiscals
Sixteen court staff
Thirty-seven staff from Scottish government
Seventeen primary school teachers.
The Scottish government does not seem shocked by this and even appeared to have been fairly relaxed a few years ago about the existence of this club, as you can see:-http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/04/24111914/38/
Is it any wonder that Tim Rustige and I have been dragged before Scottish courts and imprisoned for trying to expose this endemic national corruption over child sex abuse?
Does it surprise anyone that in contrast, these three highly influential sex offenders have walked free?
Liam Gibson, of Gibson Marine, convicted but not imprisoned for possessing over 50,000 child pornographic images, just around the time I was jailed for trying to expose perverts like him.
Douglas Haggarty, technical head of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, who was found committing a sexual act with a boy in the toilets of a large Glasgow store. Of course, not only was Haggarty not sent to prison, but kept his highly -paid public post of trust and responsibility!
Stuart MacFarlane, a former deputy of Elish Angiolini, who was arrested when having sex with a female prostitute in a public place, put the two arresting police officers in hospital when he attacked them and was subsequently discovered to possess some 15,000 child pornographic images.
In a disgusting culture like this, is it also a puzzle to anyone why First Minister Alex Salmond has twice breached the law in defying the Information Commissioner over questions about his conduct in Hollie`s case?
I am not proud to say that serious problems of high level corruption also occur in Wales, with leader Carwyn Jones implicated in the shocking and moving Linda Lewis case. Terrible things have happened to this poor girl, but at least her champion, Kevin Edwards, finally obtained the courageous support necessary to blow the case open, from Assembly Member, David Rees, who deserves the support of every decent- minded person.http://cllrkevinedwards.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/over-to-you-carwyn-jones.html
So far, in Scotland, every elected politician and almost every editor, with a few honourable exceptions, is too frightened of retribution from Alex Salmond`s solicitor, Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae, to dare to speak about or publish the facts about Hollie Greig`s case nor even tell the Scottish people about their leader`s legal
Ten months have passed and Scotland`s Chief Constable still appears to be grappling with the complex question of whether or not those accused of rape should even be questioned by the Scottish police. The Chief Constable`s position is not helped, of course, by his political boss, Alex Salmond`s breaking of the law in defying the Information Commissioner in his quest to establish the facts about Salmond`s involvement in the Hollie Greig abuse case.
It may well be that Scotland`s lamentable record of having the lowest conviction rate for rape in Europe results from the attitudes of the country`s leading figures. A symptom of their utter contempt for the plight of rape victims may lie in the existence of organisations such as the Violate Club, which is present in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen.
The membership of this club is heavily represented by members of the judiciary, senior police officers, lawyers, politicians and court officials. Its activities are every bit as repulsive as its name suggests. Amongst other things, members are treated to displays of simulated rape and sexual acts between humans and animals.
The identities of some of its members, I understand, would be of considerable interest to those who have been following Hollie`s case and indeed to the people of Scotland in general. Some have even been unwise enough to pay for the club`s facilities by credit card.
Following my last post, relating to the ludicrous letter from Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson and my response, to which I am still awaiting an answer, the Scottish Police Authority has written to me to inform me that it is continuing its investigation into Chief Constable Sir Stephen House on the basis, that I quote – “the Chief Constable persistently refuses to answer what he regards as the minimum action required to be undertaken by officers under his command which would satisfy him that a thorough investigation into rape allegations had taken place“.
Just why do Police Scotland and the First Minister persist in protecting, amongst others, Denis Charles Mackie?
BBC TV Scotland broadcast a programme on 15th January, entitled “Lawyers behaving Badly”, which involved a contribution from that loyal Scot and dedicated supporter of Hollie Greig, Stuart Usher. Interesting articles from the Diary of Injustice dated 21st, 23rd and 27th January are well worth watching, too. With regard to comments about the BBC film, you will see a mention of a respected businessman and family man from Oban committing suicide after being wrongly advised to deal with a Glasgow law firm that acts for Alex Salmond. I understand that law firm to be Levy & McRae, who are also representing both Elish Angiolini in her case against me and yes, Police Scotland.
No wonder so many Scots, including editors, are terrified of Levy & McRae`s senior partner, Peter Watson.
As you will be aware, Tim Rustige (Rusty) faces trial in Aberdeen on 24th February , following fatuous complaints by the ubiquitous Angiolini. This weekend, the site “Rusty`s Skewed News” was temporarily taken down by Google as a result of a complaint by the Scottish government. When Google were pressed for more details they revealed that the complaint had been made by – Levy & McRae.
Meanwhile, rumours abound about possible laundering of large amounts of undeclared income by some solicitors in Scotland on behalf of wealthy and influential individuals, some of whom are thought to be certain members of the judiciary. The destinations largely thought to feature are the British Virgin Islands, Jersey and the Cayman Islands.
My complaint about the conduct of Lord Bannatyne`s perverse decision in favour of Angiolini, dismissing my equitable right a proper defence, along with concealment of likely sources of conflict of interest, has been taken up by the European Convention on Human Rights, who have provided me with an official file number and invited me to furnish full details of the case. I have also formally complained about Bannatyne`s conduct to the Judicial Office in Scotland and am awaiting a response.
A hearing about my case is to be heard on Wednesday 29th January and I have requested that in the circumstances, Lord Bannatyne should recuse himself while complaints about his conduct are being examined. Moreover, as the Scottish state has forced me to have to try to defend myself, I demand full details of any replacement for Lord Bannatyne, as I require an assurance that no grounds exist for cause for concern over conflict of interest. I am unable to be present in Edinburgh on Wednesday.
Returning to the Diary of Injustice`s 27 January publication, it seems that the Lord President may have misled, about his own responsibilities, the MSPs enquiring about the lack of judicial accountability. It has been discovered that the Lord President sits on a Board, along with Lord Bannatyne!
P.S. If you wish to see the BBC Scotland programme that provides some indication of the fundamental weakness of the justice system with regard to corrupt lawyers, the links are here.http://www.youtube.com/watch?V=4CY5w8L4els
I received a letter from a Scottish police officer called Neil Richardson last week.
In it he repeated the ridiculous mantra that a “thorough investigation” into Hollie`s allegations had taken place. Officer Richardson had clearly not bothered to check the facts before putting his name to such nonsense. Police evidence given on oath at my trial confirmed that not one of the 22 named alleged abusers of Hollie, whom the police have already described unequivocally as a victim, had ever been questioned, or had their computers examined, following Hollie`s statement to the police on 8th September 2009, which I witnessed. Additionally, the letter failed to address the fact that Grampian Police had withheld two crucial medical documents supporting Hollie from the Prosecutor.
The police officer who made this staggering confession in court was the one who had interviewed Hollie , DC Lisa Jane Evans. Of course, Hollie`s claims had been fully supported by a wide range of expert witness statements that are in the public domain. At the police interview, Hollie conducted herself throughout three and a half hours with astonishing courage and composure and despite her speech impediment and her recounting of horrifying ordeals, made her statements with impressive clarity and detail.
DC Evans` admission was supported by nine of those accused by Hollie, who was accepted as a truthful and competent witness, whom the prosecution had chosen to testify against me. All nine confirmed that the police had never interviewed them over Hollie`s strongly and professionally supported allegations made to DC Evans.
Significantly,the complainants against me did not include Denis and Greg Mackie, the two individuals against whom the expert evidence was overwhelmingly strong.
The nine who gave evidence in open court, with no reporting restrictions, are as follows.
Sheriff Graham Buchanan – described by Hollie to DC Evans as “a big lawyer”.
Sylvia Major – cousin of Denis Mackie, who is now scheduled to testify against Timothy Rustige at the trial on 24th February in Aberdeen, accompanied by Elish Angiolini.
Carol Low – her name was mispronounced as “Kyle” by Hollie
Jillian Mackie – Denis Mackie`s sister-in-law. At that time, she had recently been a key witness as a friend of convicted murderer Malcolm Webster at his trial.
Andrew Young – former head teacher at Beechwood Special School, where Hollie was a pupil. Mr Young blatantly perjured himself at the trial when questioned by defence QC Andy Lamb about medical reports on Hollie submitted by the school medical officer, Dr Paul Carter. Mr Young admitted to the court that he had resided at the home of Sylvia and Terry Major.
Helen Macdonald – Hollie`s former carer.
Win Dragon – also due to give evidence against Tim Rustige, along with Elish Angiolini.
Of course, none of this by itself can possibly confirm the guilt of those named. What we do know is that not one of them was even questioned by the police, let alone have their computers examined, the normal police procedure in such circumstances.
That is all.
Although this cannot be included as evidence, the police and authorities would do well to heed the words of one of Scotland`s most prominent lawyers, Peter Anderson of Simpson & Marwick, who represents both Sheriff Buchanan and Denis Mackie. Mr Anderson is adamant that Sheriff Buchanan is innocent of all allegations, but has written to me to say that he thinks Denis and Greg Mackie may well have sexually abused Hollie and that others may well have abused her too. It is good to find a lawyer in Scotland who can not only be loyal to his clients, but be brutally honest when appropriate, especially when a small disabled girl has been raped.
Returning to Officer Richardson, what was most extraordinary about the letter is that he holds the rank of Deputy Chief Constable. This means that in the absence of the Chief Constable, the women, children and disabled of Scotland will have to rely on him for their safety and protection from sexual attack.
Now, having vigorously responded to his letter in a way that you might expect, DCC Richardson can reply in two ways.
Either he can admit his mistake and accept that no adequate investigation of Hollie`s claims has ever taken place that could be remotely described as “thorough”, or he can say that he does not think those accused of rape need to be questioned at all, even when the accuser`s claims are supported by extensive expert evidence.
Again, Police Scotland, just who are you really protecting?
Bill`s tireless investigations into the horrific sexual abuse of children by powerfully connected magic circle criminals, assisted towards the Sunday Express`s article of 12th January. In my view, Bill deserves the thanks of every parent and every decent person in this country for his courageous work and I personally appreciate his mentioning the Hollie Greig case in his radio interview of 13th January.
So many people, seeing the published expert witness evidence on Hollie`s case for the first time, ask me how it is possible for the police not to carry out the most basic of investigations and to even try to justify this inaction . They also ask why so few MPs or MSPs have the integrity to publicly comment or assist in this shocking case.
The last question is easy to answer in one word – blackmail!
It is exactly why none of our elected representatives actually stood up to expose Savile and Cyril Smith whilst these two monsters were alive.
Of course, there are the customary threats of compromising promotion prospects, etc, but it is mainly to do with our MPs and MSPs being warned about past indiscretions, rather than outright crimes, such as the occasion in Amsterdam several years ago, for example. What would happen if your wife and children were to hear about it?
This kind of low-level threat is normally sufficient to send our esteemed representatives scuttling for cover. The fundamental message from the powers-that-really-be is “Keep your mouth shut about exposing child sex abuse by powerful people if you know what`s good for you”. It is the language of the gangster. It is the modus operandi of the thug.
Meanwhile, our children and the disabled continued to be trafficked, raped and tortured and possibly even worse, whilst a spineless and compliant government looks the other way. It is up to all of us to make this issue central to the 2015 General Election, Nothing, but nothing, can possibly be more important than ensuring the future safety of our children.
Whilst governments in the United Kingdom continue to acquiesce in these terrible crimes, we have to rely on the bravery of people like Bill Maloney.
In Scotland, some so-called opponents of Alex Salmond worry about his acknowledged cunning political skills in respect of the coming independence referendum. This site has no comment to make on this issue, which I believe to be a matter for Scotland to decide. It is Alex Salmond as a person, rather than his political views, that ought to be a matter of concern for the Scottish people.
All the media have to do is to merely republish these headlines from respected legal magazine The Firm in 2011.
Exclusive: Information Commissioner forces government response to Hollie Greig inquiries
First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations.
Then the people of Scotland would then be in a position to hold an informed opinion about the character and priorities of the current leader.
It is clear from all expert evidence that Hollie Greig has been the victim of sexual abuse over a long period of time, from around the age of six. It is also apparent that the main and initial abuser is her father, Denis Mackie. We know that the police have not investigated Mackie. All this information has been in Alex Salmond`s possession for some years.
Why then does he continue to protect a man he must know has raped his little, disabled daughter?
Why was Mr Salmond even prepared to defy the Queen`s own appointed official and break the law on two occasions, rather than act, in order to protect Denis Mackie?
What possible hold can a man like Mackie have over the Scottish leader?
These are all absolutely valid questions. All evidence, including that from police experts, points to Mackie being culpable. His own solicitor, Peter Anderson, is honest enough to write that even he thinks Mackie is probably guilty. Of course, there is also no reason why all the other 21 individuals named by Hollie as abusers should not be questioned and have their computers examined. But the evidence against Denis Mackie in particular is overwhelming.
So why is he not being questioned by the police and having his computer seized – are the police and possibly Mr Salmond, afraid of what or who it might reveal?
It was interesting to see how prominently the British media have just featured the French president`s alleged affair with an actress – front page news!
I suppose that all this is mildly entertaining, but how can it possibly compare in newsworthiness to a British national leader caught breaking the law in order to try to cover up for a man who has serially raped his own disabled daughter?
The scandal of Alex Salmond`s involvement should be on the front page of every newspaper and on every news bulletin, north and south of the border.
So why isn`t it, many people have asked me?
Well, as mentioned in previous posts, The First Minister`s own personal solicitor, Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae, who also acts for Elish Angiolini, represents all the main Scottish broadcasters and news outlets and perhaps most alarming of all, controls the Scottish police. No wonder all the editors are terrified of him.
But then where are the English media, you may well ask?
Whilst they are perfectly happy to publish tittle-tattle about the French leader`s love life, they cringe at the prospect of re-publishing the scandal of the Scottish leader`s conduct. They cannot possibly face legal action. The ruling about Mr Salmond has been made by the Information Commissioner and The Firm`s publishing of the facts over two years ago went unchallenged.
Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith, Jersey, Hollie Greig – who or what can they all be frightened of?
In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed this post. If you wish, you can read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.
I am pleased to tell you that Stuart Syvret has now been released. details and interviews may be seen on seen on the Voiceforchildren and the Needle sites. Although it is excellent news that Stuart, a former Jersey Senator and Health Minister, is again a free man, it is important to be aware of his continued persecution by the island`s establishment. Jersey simply can`t afford to be recognised as a kind of perverted paradise for the Jimmy Saviles of this world, can it?
It is not only Stuart who has been targeted, of course, but also that fine police officer, Chief Constable Graham Power QPM, who has been ruthlessly attacked for his courage and integrity in exposing the rotten core of Jersey`s paedophile elite and its “distinguished” visitors like Savile.
This morning, in the Daily Mirror, yet another excellent police officer, DCI Clive Driscoll, has been “prematurely retired” and taken off the Stephen Lawrence case, to the disgust of Stephen`s mother, Baroness Lawrence. She described DCI Driscoll as the police officer she most trusted in bringing some of her son`s racist killers to justice. So what could DCI Driscoll possibly have done wrong?
Well, 10 months ago he criticised the scrapping of the Lambeth children`s home sex probe after he had named politicians as suspects.
Lambeth, Jersey,The Elm Guest House, Bryn Estyn, the Hollie Greig case – the UK`s elite child-rapists must remain, in the “public interest” of course, a protected species. It does not matter how many poor children suffer unspeakable horrors at the hands of these monsters, “national security” demands that these vile but influential criminals remain at large.
Returning to Hollie`s case, Lord Bannatyne has now ruled, after a delay of over two months, that I have defamed Elish Angiolini by accusing her of covering up the case, despite my being completely denied any legal representation to defend her action in what is to me, in legal terms, a country as foreign as Bolivia or Burma. On the other hand, Angiolini was represented by Scotland`s most highly qualified QC , Roddy Dunlop. Not only that , but Mr Dunlop may well have been paid out of the public purse for this private action ( Mr Dunlop refuses to disclose whether such a misapproriation has taken place).
Lord Bannatyne has also acted in direct conflict with his two predecessors, Lords Glennie and Stewart, who had upheld my right to be provided with an adequate defence on equitable grounds. I have already formally registered my objection to Bannatyne`s decision in the strongest terms.
You will not be surprised to learn that I have no intention of being ordered what to do in my own country by a corrupt foreign regime with a notorious human rights record and a leader, Alex Salmond, who is too much of a coward to even stand up to protect the children and disabled of his own country from gang rape. The Information Commissioner has already ruled that Salmond has breached sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the FOI Act in his refusals to answer the Commissioner`s questions on the Hollie Greig abuse case.
I have learned that Stuart Syvret, who has bravely fought to expose the shocking events at Haut De La Garenne children`s home, Jersey, has been jailed again. It hardly bears thinking about that Stuart is imprisoned, whilst the perverted criminals whom he tried to expose, such as Jimmy Savile and his fellow magic circle monsters remained and those still alive remain at large to abuse and torture children at will. The very fact that Stuart Syvret is in prison again indicates that even after Savile, the British authorities are prepared to continue to protect high-level paedophiles at all costs.
What does that say about our country?
The interview by Brian Gerrish on the UK Column Live on 19th December can be viewed and I thank again those of you who have contacted me having seen the damning evidence shown, fully supporting Hollie`s claims and condemning the authorities, including Alex Salmond, with his confirmed breaches of sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the FOI Act. It is a pity that Scotland`s so-called leader still remains a puppet of the vicious magic circle that really runs Scotland.
During the UK Column interview, Brian brought up the matter of Bill Maloney`s suggestion that whistleblowers who are involved in paedophile rings should be offered an amnesty if they are prepared to come forward. Given the way the ringleaders of such groups use threats and blackmail to terrorise those implicated as well as victims into remaining silent, I think that there is considerable merit in Bill`s idea. In Hollie Greig`s case, it may encourage at least one of the 29 named alleged perpetrators and victims, to come forward should protection be granted.
Of course, this all depends on whether the various governments of the United Kingdom actually want to stamp out the organised sexual abuse and trafficking of children and the disabled.
We shall see.
Throughout the years of the Hollie Greig campaign, there has been one common denominator in my dealings with the Scottish legal establishment. Everyone seems to be terrified of one man in particular – Peter Watson, senior partner of law firm Levy & McRae,
The firm`s own website boasts of many things, including keeping its clients off the front pages. It also states that it represents the biggest names in broadcasting and media in Scotland. Although it does not mention this, Professor Watson also personally represents Alex Salmond and Elish Angiolini, as well as Police Scotland. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is a former colleague of Peter Watson at Levy & McRae. Professor Watson is also known to have influential connections with the tax haven of the Cayman Islands.
The boast of keeping its clients off the front pages may indicate to some that it could enable Peter Watson to control, for example, leading politicians, senior police officers, members of the judiciary and legal profession and editors by means of blackmail. Whilst I have no evidence as yet to confirm that this type of coercion has ever occurred, it may not be unreasonable to suggest that Professor Watson is in a position to act in this way should he choose to do so. It may also go some way to explaining why people in Scotland are so frightened of him.
In fairness, concerns about his power and influence have been raised publicly by BBC Scotland`s Legal Head, Alistair Bonnington and by experienced Guardian journalist Roy Greenslade.
I understand that Peter Watson is a regular and loyal reader of this site and once again, I invite him to contact me if he feels that my comments are either inaccurate or unfair and I offer to publish such a response.
Finally, may I again congratulate Kevin Edwards and his supporters in South Wales in successfully exposing the brutal and criminal persecution of young Welsh girl Linda Lewis by the Welsh government. It is also important to salute Assembly Member David Rees for his courage and sense of duty to the people of Wales. If only the Scottish Parliament possessed just one person of Mr Rees`s calibre, the Hollie Greig case would be fully opened up, enabling the Scottish people to form their own opinions on its significance and credibility, an opportunity so far denied to them by its government`s threats against the media. Such threats were issued by none other than Levy & McRae, naturally!
Details of recent events in the Linda Lewis case can be found on the link:-http://cllrkevinedwards.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/welsh-assembly-government-and-neath.html
It just goes to show that with courage, resolve and skill, national leaders like Carwyn Jones and Alex Salmond can be finally exposed for their misdemeanours in public office.
Happy New Year to you all!
I was very pleased to have been invited to appear on UK Column Live`s televised programme, being interviewed by Brian Gerrish, on 19th December. The UK Column has established a fine reputation with its fearless reporting and is an example to those journalists and editors who are too often intimidated into dropping stories they know to be true and in the public interest. The main feature of the interview was the factual evidence that supports the validity of the campaign on which I have relied. The interview can be seen, around twenty-eight minutes into the programme.
The documents exposing Alex Salmond`s involvement in the case are shown and the Freedom of Information Commissioner has confirmed that Mr Salmond and the SNP government were twice in breach of the terms of the FOI Act in connection with the Hollie Greig case.
In my previous post I reported my complaint to the police about Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen`s racial abuse directed at me and his complicity in falsifying the court audio record in order to omit his offensive and discriminatory remark. This abuse of me followed the discovery of Bowen`s undisclosed ten year relationship with cited defence witness Elish Angiolini, after I had publicly confronted Bowen with this deception in the courtroom. None of this appears to have had any negative impact on the pair`s academic careers. Angiolini was subsequently installed as Principal of St Hugh`s College Oxford, while Bowen retains his post as Assessor at Edinburgh University, where the Princess Royal is the Chancellor .Her Royal Highness`s private secretary has been kept informed of Bowen`s disgraceful conduct.
Scotland`s excellent Judicial Complaints Reviewer, Ms Moi Ali, has produced a damning report on the lack of accountability and disclosure failings of Scotland`s judiciary. The case of Edward Bowen amplifies and confirms everything that is wrong with the present laissez faire attitude displayed by the Lord President. Reports on Ms Ali`s official document have been published in the Scottish Sunday Mail of 15th December and in A Diary of Injustice on 16th December. The headline reads “Guilty, M`Luds”.
Very good news has been reported from Wales in the past few days over the absolutely shocking Linda Lewis case, a study in the criminally cruel conduct of the state if ever there was one, in this case the Welsh Assembly- it is not just in Scotland that staggeringly barbaric corruption at the highest level exists.
Kevin Edwards, an astonishingly brave campaigner must take a great deal of credit for this in his battle against the odds in exposing a degree of state criminality that is almost beyond belief. A look at the Justice for Linda Lewis site will provide details of this heartrending case. One can only applaud one Welsh Assembly Member, David Rees, for his bravery and decency in obtaining confirmation that the Welsh Assembly, after years of denials, had indeed conspired to kidnap a defenceless and ill young girl. This development must give real hope to all victims of ruthless state oppression. One can only wish that the Scottish Parliament might include just one member as brave as David Rees – let us hope so, for the sake of all children and the disabled in that benighted country.
In another and totally unrelated case, Herefordshire`s Guy Taylor used his extensive knowledge of Common Law to win a landmark battle against huge business interests, not helped by sheer ignorance of the law and the indifference of the courts themselves.
There is no question that things are changing and that more and more good judges, police officers and politicians are coming forward with the overwhelming majority of people in trying to restore decency, justice and humanity to our once proud nation that has now become widely known as the sick and depraved man of Europe.
Finally at this time of the year, I would like to thank again all the fine people who have loyally stood with me and especially in supporting the wonderfully courageous Hollie Greig and her devoted mother, Anne. I wish all of you the very best for Christmas and the New Year. The coming year will be a challenging one, no doubt, but with courage and resolve we can and will win. Kevin Edwards and Guy Taylor have just demonstrated that.
Today, I have made a formal complaint to Cheshire Police about two crimes committed by the above individual, one of racial abuse against me on 17th February 2012 and the second of the tampering with and the falsifying of court evidence by Bowen and unidentified accomplices at a location and date unknown to me.
The audio of the court evidence was produced by Ultra Electronics Audiosoft, of Cirencester , Gloucestershire. The head of operations there, Andy Sullivan, has refused to offer any explanation of exactly how the audio came to have been so falsified. It is due to this evasion that I have now decided to report directly to the police.
After I had complained repeatedly that the document I had been sent from the Crown Office about Bowen`s sentencing remarks omitted two sentences, including the one in which the racial abuse occurred and the persistent refusal of the court to provide me with a copy of the audio, Lord Eassie appointed Lady Smith to investigate. Regrettably, due to a transparent lack of vigour and balance on Her Ladyship`s part, it may be reasonable to conclude that her priority was not for justice to be done and to be seen to be done, but to protect a fellow member of the judiciary at all costs. Moreover, Lady Smith would not allow me to listen to the audio – why not, if there is nothing to hide?
Meanwhile, with regard to Alex Salmond`s involvement in the Hollie Greig case, accurately reported in The Firm`s articles of 3 June and 11 July 2011 respectively, I have a letter dated 18 October 2013 from David Woods of the First Minister`s Correspondence Unit, assuring me that a reply will be sent to me as soon as possible.
I am still waiting.
Mr Salmond has all the key expert documents in his possession about Hollie`s case that has prompted such welcome support from politicians south of the border, as well as many people, including respected professionals, throughout the world. The evidence is overwhelming of both Grampian Police`s failures and its corruption in withholding crucial evidence of the sexual abuses from the Prosecutor.
Exactly what, or perhaps who, is keeping Mr Salmond from calling for the proper inquiry this case so justly deserves.
This is the staggeringly inaccurate remark attributed to the current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, whilst discussing the issue of corroborative evidence The Scottish Law Reporter and others have challenged Mr Mulholland over this clear inconsistency in relation to its treatment of the Hollie Greig case.
The article can be accessed as follows:-http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2013/11/selective-evidence-lord-advocate.html
In Hollie`s case, there were in fact no fewer than 29 potential corroborative witnesses, although not one of them was interviewed by the police following Hollie`s detailed account of September 2009, supported furthermore by extensive expert witness documentation. There would have been another corroborative witness, Hollie`s Uncle Roy (Robert Greig), had he not died mysteriously and suspiciously in a car fire shortly after walking in on Hollie being sexually assaulted by her father.
The astonishing and horrifying case of the poor Italian lady whose baby was ripped from her womb on the orders of Essex Social Services has shocked the nation, but has served to highlight what those of us who have had dealings with social services and the Family Court have known for years. Therein exists a terrible and heartless culture that has arisen as a result, primarily, of the secrecy that allows cruel, venal and often greedy people to act with impunity.
We have experienced this type of conduct in Hollie`s case, initially when Hollie`s mother Anne was forcibly and unjustifiably dragged to a mental institution just days after Hollie had identified the members of the ring that abused her, which included two Aberdeen social workers.
Once the case was gaining public momentum, the two unfortunate ladies were persecuted yet again by Shropshire Social Services, who ransacked and vandalised their home on 3rd June 2010 without any justification whatsoever while the ladies were on holiday. This draconian action by Social Services was presumably taken in order to protect their abuser colleagues in Aberdeen from publicity by intimidating Anne and Hollie into silence.
Legal action was also taken to do so, with another example of the corruption that exists within the Family Division taking place on 1st July 2010. In another secret court, Mrs Justice Pauffley attempted to pervert the course of justice by trying to bully Anne Greig and me into entering the court without our chosen legal advisers, in contradiction to our equitable rights. We faced the judge down, despite her threats and she was forced to concede. The same judge appeared to lose control at a subsequent hearing on 14th June 2011, when she made a thoughtless and offensive remark directed at Hollie.
I formally complained about her conduct at the time and have now done so again to the head of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, who seems to be getting to grips with the scandal within the courts and has just intervened on behalf of the Italian lady and her baby. However, I learned a few days ago that Mrs Justice Pauffley has been promoted!
Thanks to all of you who sent kind messages to me following my interview with Sonia Poulton on TPV last Thursday. Good luck also to another interviewee, Sid Hingerty, who is currently walking across the Midlands on his way to London to highlight the government`s granting of de facto immunity from prosecution to influential serial sex offenders like Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith. Never forget that it is not who you know, but what you know about who you know that counts in this country if you want to get away with committing serious crimes against children and the disabled.
Best wishes also to the new broadcasters of TPV and to UK Column Live, who have flown the flag for some time in highlighting cases that the government does not want the public to know about. I`m quite sure that we would have heard nothing even about the Italian lady if the Leveson oppressors had got their way in gagging the media.
Thanks is due to The People`s Voice (TPV) for inviting me to be interviewed by Sonia Poulton about the Hollie Greig case yesterday. For those of you who asked about Hollie, she enjoyed her 34th birthday last week. Hollie presents a shining example of bravery, against all the odds, to us all.
I was able to highlight the articles in the respected legal magazine The Firm, clearly demonstrating Alex Salmond and his government`s refusal to comply with the terms of the FOI Act when approached repeatedly by the Commissioner for information on the First Minister`s connection with the Hollie Greig case. Surely if a national leader is not prepared to stand up to defend children and the disabled in his own country from the horrors of sexual abuse, then he is palpably unfit to lead that country. That is now Alex Salmond`s position.
For those of you who watched the show and became aware of the case for the first time, I should say that the reason it has been established that the alleged abusers of Hollie were never even questioned by the police, came as a result of my trial.
When DC Lisa Evans, who had interviewed Hollie in my presence on 8th September 2009, was asked by my Counsel, Andy Lamb QC, if any of those clearly identified byHollie had been questioned by the police, DC Evans said “No”.
Nine of those named by Hollie were brought in to testify against me by the prosecution. Mr Lamb asked each of the nine if they had ever been questioned by the police about Hollie`s allegations against them. Each one replied “No”.
This by itself constitutes a gross dereliction of duty by DC Evans and the other officers directly responsible for investigating the case, led by D.I. Alex Dowell, who did not appear in court.
Again, for those new to the case, the two alleged identified abusers against whom the evidence was strongest, Hollie`s father and brother, were not amongst those who complained about me. Indeed, Mr Peter Anderson, the senior partner of Hollie`s father`s own solicitors Simpson & Marwick, which he shares with the sheriff named by Hollie, writes that “Hollie may well have been sexually abused by her father and brother”.
If even Hollie`s father`s own solicitor thinks that, is there any possible reason why the two should not be questioned immediately and have their computers checked, given the weight of evidence against them?
Moreover, when you consider that some of the celebrities in the Jimmy Savile case have even been charged, let alone questioned, on much weaker evidence that that produced to support Hollie, it makes you wonder who the Scottish police really are protecting and why?
Some of the key documentary evidence referred to in the programme may be viewed in an earlier interview with Brian Gerrish, of the UK Column, who has also been gallantly flying the flag on behalf of the many victims of state-sponsored corruption in our country.http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-live-8th-november-2012
Thank you all again for your loyal support and for the kindness I received from the team at TPV, including of course, Sonia Poulton and David Icke. They have begun a wonderful venture in the interests of freedom from the oppression suffered by so many of our fellow citizens at the hands of an increasingly repressive state apparatus.
Who is pulling the strings in our country?
Certainly not the good people of this land of ours.
Alex Salmond has today included in his independence address the astonishing claim that it would lead to a “fairer and more democratic Scotland”. Not under Salmond and his little gang, it wouldn`t.
How does he equate these concepts with the fact that I was snatched from the street by detectives at the beginning of my parliamentary election campaign in Aberdeen South in 2010, in order to challenge the SNP`s Mark McDonald and expose the SNP`s failure over the Hollie Greig case?
I was immediately then denied my human rights to legal representation and banned from the constituency and in fact, the whole of Aberdeenshire, in which Mr Salmond`s own constituency lies.
This action was not just an attack on me nor on Hollie Greig`s quest for justice, but on parliamentary democracy itself.
How then does the First Minister equate “fairness and democracy” with the single politically controlled police force that he has installed?
How does he equate these concepts with the fact that one solicitor, Peter Watson of Levy & McRae, represents the Scottish Police, Elish Angiolini, has a former Levy & McRae man as Justice Secretary and represents Mr Salmond himself ?
That is not all. By its own admission on its website, Levy & McRae represents all Scotland`s major broadcasting media. How on earth can Mr Salmond explain why he thinks these blatant conflicts of interest will lead to greater “fairness and democracy”?
Of course, we may be sure that none of the Scottish media will dare to challenge Salmond on these fundamental points of public interest. The all-powerful Professor Watson will simply not allow it.
Just to remind everyone again that in respect of the Hollie Greig case, Salmond`s government, in 2011, breached sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act in its repeated refusals to supply the Commissioner Kevin Dunion with the information required about Hollie.
Mr Dunion said “If the Ministers fail to comply with my decision, I have the right to certify that Ministers have failed to comply. The Court of Session can treat the failure as a contempt of court.
Thus , Alex Salmond`s entire government came within 24 hours of facing potential criminal charges.
Have the Scottish people been made aware of this dramatic event in what must be a matter of overriding public interest?
Of course not, Peter Watson would not permit the dear leader to face such likely public opprobium.
Meanwhile, in this fairer and more democratic country, Tim Rustige (Rusty) is now facing a five-day trial commencing 24th February, which is three days longer that the original was intended to be. Could it be that the trio of Sylvia Major, Elish Angiolini and Win Dragon will finally face cross-examination under oath?
The basis for this persecution of a brave international human rights activist is that he is alleged to have publicly objected to Angiolini`s suitability to be installed as Principal of St Hugh`s College, Oxford, which she claims has caused her “alarm and distress”. Such alarm and distress must be significantly worse than the horrifying rape ordeals endured by Hollie Greig and probably, many other children and the disabled in Aberdeen. The poor woman must have suffered much more than the Lockerbie case`s Mr Al-Megrahi, terminally ill and locked away far from his home and family for years in a Scottish jail after being blatantly framed, with Angiolini`s knowledge and collaboration.
May I ask again for full support for Rusty from all decent people who really do believe in fairness and democracy?
The People`s Voice took to the air yesterday. The United Kingdom as a whole desperately needs the fundamental freedoms of the press and expression that it has been surreptitiously denied. As an example, if only the mainstream media had followed the example of David Icke in accusing Savile of his crimes whilst he was alive, how many ruined lives would have been saved, how many nightmare ordeals prevented?
That is why the country needs to return to true freedom.
I shall be interviewed by Sonia Poulton on The People`s Voice this Thursday, the 28th November. The programme begins at 17.15hrs.
This post opens on a solemn note, relating to the 25th anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing.
On the 21st December, at 6.45pm, a service in memory of the 270 people who died is being held at Westminster Abbey. Tickets are free and can be obtained by contacting Matthew Arnoldi, Room 21, The Chapter Office, Westminster Abbey, 20 Dean Yard, London SW1P 3PA.
Amongst those present will be that gallant gentleman, Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter on that terrible night. Dr Swire has nonetheless continued his fight to discover exactly who was responsible for the deaths of his daughter and the other victims. It was clearly not Mr Al-Megrahi, himself a victim of a monstrous frame up involving, as usual, the Scottish Government, with its appalling human rights record..
Even the Chief Prosecutor, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie admitted in 2005 that he regarded the main prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, as unreliable. In 2009, he also made a curious statement to the effect that the Scottish Government should do nothing to upset the CIA.
What then, are we to make of the then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini`s statement of 8th September 2009, expressing contempt for Mr Al-Megrahi`s wish to appeal against his conviction, a conviction she knew full well to have been unsustainable?
Of course, this site is primarily dedicated to Hollie Greig, but we are dealing with same utterly corrupt and dishonest regime that includes Elish Angiolini, Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill as its most prominent figures.
Finally, I am due to be interviewed this coming Thursday 28th November, by Sonia Poulton on the new TV and radio channel, The People`s Voice.
Since sending all the key expert witness documents for the attention of the First Minister`s constituency committee on 3rd October, I am still awaiting the promised response from his office. Given the overwhelming evidence of the uninvestigated crimes and police corruption, it is difficult to understand any good reason for Mr Salmond`s delay.
If I may, I will again remind readers of the headlines from respected legal magazine The Firm of 2011, illustrating within the articles the likelihood of the First Minister`s complicity in the Hollie Greig cover up.
3rd June Exclusive: Information Commissioner forces Government response to Hollie Greig inquiries.
and on 11th July,
First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations
The second article refers to the fact that the entire SNP Government came within 24 hours of being held in contempt of court due to its failure to comply with a formal enquiry from the Freedom of Information Commissioner.
Since that time, we have established that the Scottish Police made no attempt to even question the 22 identified alleged sexual abusers.
It is surely not now a question of “Will Mr Salmond act on this utter travesty of justice that has placed Scottish children and the disabled at risk?”, but “What does he propose doing about it?”
Mr Salmond should be reminded that his overriding duty as First Minister is to be responsible for the interests and wellbeing of the people of Scotland as a whole, rather than any prior obligation to protect the coterie that surrounds him, including Kenny MacAskill, Elish Angiolini, Peter Watson and Chief Constable House.
Of course, it is not just in Scotland that terrible sexual crimes against the vulnerable are covered up at government level. In the United Kingdom, Hollie Greig`s case is but one of several, including those involving the likes of Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith and events at the Elm Guest House and in Jersey, at Haut De La Garenne.
It is interesting to observe that the intelligence services are now being asked to participate in countering paedophilia, but are these the same intelligence services that preventing the police from investigating Cyril Smith?
Are these the same intelligence services that that allowed Prince Charles to eulogise about Jimmy Savile on his death two years ago,?
Sir Roger Jones, Chairman of the Children in Need Charity between 1999 and 2002 said of Savile “He was a creepy sort of character – we wouldn`t want him anywhere near the charity”. Now if Sir Roger and his board knew this about Savile over ten years ago, why did the so-called intelligence services not warn Prince Charles in 2011?
Could it be that a) the intelligence services have been infiltrated by influential paedophiles, or b) there is the use of blackmailing powerful child abusers by the intelligence services in order for the state to exert control over them or c) are the services just plain incompetent?
Our intelligence services are publicly funded with a duty to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom. I believe we have a right to the truth when our children are being sexually abused and the state is failing to intervene on their behalf.
Strange though it may seem, Chief Superintendent Ian Paterson has been jailed for eighteen months for sexually assaulting three women. It is exceptionally unusual for any senior official in Scotland to receive a custodial sentence for sexual crime, let alone even be investigated. Amongst others, BBC News featured this on 11th November.
However, is it any wonder that this particular force is responsible for covering up the Hollie Greig case and concealing evidence from the prosecutor when it is infested with this kind of police officer?
Interestingly the former Chief Superintendent only received a sentence six months longer for assaulting three women than I received for trying to protect girls and women from sexual predators like him.This is the way the law is administered in Scotland.
Meanwhile the Diary of Injustice, on 14th November, featured Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill supporting the Lord President in his efforts to retain the secrecy that Scottish judges claim as their right in concealing their outside interests and connections. This contrasts directly with the requirement placed upon politicians and almost all other senior public officials in order to avoid any prospect of a conflict of interest arising.
So this veil of secrecy can continue thanks to the collaboration of Mr MacAskill, who, in 2009, notoriously lied to the entire world about the circumstances relating to the release of Mr Al-Megrahi, in the Lockerbie case.
Whilst on the subject of the Scottish Judiciary concealing vital information about themselves, may I remind readers of Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen`s undeclared ten year relationship with cited defence witness Elish Angiolini at my trial. When I challenged Bowen about this blatant conflict of interest, I was rewarded with racial abuse and a one year prison sentence. Moreover, it is now known that Bowen is implicated in falsifying the official court audio in order for the offending words to have been deleted.
It would be greatly appreciated if those who were so kind as to attend in supporting me and heard the discriminatory remark, on 17th February 2012 at Stonehaven Court, would be good enough to contact me at:- firstname.lastname@example.org
I am still awaiting Alex Salmond`s response to his examination of all the key expert documents supporting Hollie Greig`s allegations and the fact that Grampian Police deliberately withheld the most crucial of these documents from the Prosecutor, one of which identified yet another senior Grampian Police officer as a likely sexual offender.
Continuing the theme of my last post, Police Scotland is still refusing to return my property, seized from my home almost four years ago. Sir Stephen House has been asked to provide an explanation.
Amongst the items is the hard-drive from my computer, from which private and confidential emails between me and journalists Peter Cherbi and Brian Gerrish had been extracted for use by Elish Angiolini in her civil action against me. Her solicitor, Fred Tyler, of Balfour & Manson, has continually refused to disclose complete provenance as to how this private information was obtained and who authorised it to be passed to Angiolini.
Meanwhile, Alex Salmond has still failed to respond to the receipt of key documents about Hollie`s case sent to his constituency committee at Inverurie and has yet to issue a statement relating to his repeated knowledge of the case that goes back six years. Of course, I hold documentary evidence to prove this. He has been given the opportunity to make a public statement calling for a properly constituted inquiry into the Hollie Greig case, given the existence of a blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice. Such a statement will ensure my full cooperation, in the overriding interests of the children and disabled of Scotland.
It is important to reiterate that this campaign has nothing whatsoever to do with the independence debate. In fact, many of Hollie`s most loyal supporters are dedicated nationalists. Among them is the well-known Robbie The Pict who wrote to The Firm when the article was published on 1st October 2010 on Angiolini`s sudden decision to resign as Lord Advocate. The magazine indicated a likely reason to be Angiolini`s failure to address the Freedom of Information Commissioner`s query about her possible misappropriation of public funds. This referred to her attempts to silence the media over Hollie`s case, using the solicitor she shares with Alex Salmond, Peter Watson of Levy & McRae, a query that remains unresolved to this day.
This is what Robbie The Pict wrote to The Firm as a comment about Angiolini:- “Why on earth would a nationalist party ever have retained a unionist Lord Advocate in the first place? That was madness on the part of Salmond, but then look at what she does to Scotland`s reputation over the Lockerbie explosion. She refused to re-examine the Skye tolls fraud and hardly smells of roses in the Hollie Greig case. A very good riddance.”
Finally, the incredible courage of Hollie Greig must never be overlooked, having suffered unspeakable ordeals at the hands of her attackers and then being relentlessly persecuted by the very state officials who duty it is to defend and protect her. It is an utter disgrace to our country that there are those who have actively tried to cover up the crimes and to a lesser extent, those prominent people who have lacked the courage to help Hollie, who should also hang their heads in shame.
If there is one woman who should be publicly honoured for her bravery, it is Hollie Greig. Her birthday takes place on 23rd November. I am sure that you will all join me in wishing her a very happy day.
The Scottish people can have little confidence these days in the probity of its single, unaccountable police force. That in itself is bad enough, but worse still, the force is effectively operating in the pocket of an unelected lawyer whom few Scots have even heard of, Peter Watson of Levy & McRae, who also represents Mr Salmond and Elish Angiolini. Even Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is a former Levy & McRae colleague. The firm boasts that it represents all the major broadcasting media in Scotland and that it employs former senior police officers. Surely no conflict of interest exists, can it?
Given its iron grip on the media, there is little chance of most Scots even hearing anything about grave issues concerning their government, judiciary and police that should be genuine matters of public interest. True freedom of the press and freedom of expression simply do not exist in Scotland. Should you be so bold or unwise as to upset Professor Watson`s private agenda, you are likely to be thrown into prison.
Such is the state of an integral part of the United Kingdom today.
Once again, if the professor considers my comments to be unfair or inaccurate, I should be willing to publish his response on this site.
The Chief Constable, Sir Stephen House, recently knighted for his “services to law and order”, is still unable to answer a very simple question that really must be a matter of public interest.
The Chief Constable of Scotland, a country with the lowest conviction rate for rape in the whole of Europe, still cannot bring himself to describe the basic police actions required in order for him to consider an investigation into rape allegations as “thorough”.
So far, it would seem that the Chief Constable may not even regard the questioning of alleged identified sexual abusers to be necessary, even when the alleged victim`s complaints are supported by detailed expert witness evidence, including that of the police doctor and by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
What could it possibly be that makes Sir Stephen so reticent?
Perhaps Professor Watson may not approve of his answer.
Irrespective of the good professor`s opinion, I think that the people of Scotland have a right to know about the views on the subject of rape from the individual they most look to for protection, don`t you?
The startling news from Scotland is that at the last minute, Rusty`s trial has been dramatically postponed.
It is understood that Alex Salmond has been receiving calls today indicating that the documentary evidence shows that he is in serious trouble over the Hollie Greig cover up. I was going to expose his involvement in Court when acting as witness for Rusty and Angiolini and her little gang were also to be brought before the Court for cross-examination.
There have been very interesting articles published within the past few days, including one in the news section of the respected Christian magazine Voice for Justice on 30 October, which called for an inquiry into the Hollie Greig case. The Scottish Review of the 15th October headlined “Suffer the Little Children of Scotland for They Suffer in Silence”, written by the eminent Kenneth Roy. A disturbing but apt description of what happens to defenceless children like Hollie in that benighted country where no one of authority has the courage or decency to stand up for them.
There is also the not insignificant issue of Downing St`s burgeoning support for Rusty and exposure of the Hollie Greig case
It is too early to say what will happen next, but I was certainly going to repeat what I said in the Court of Session about Elish Angiolini in Aberdeen Sheriff Court. This is a person who was prepared to lie to the whole world about the Lockerbie disaster and Mr Al-Megrahi.
Who in their right mind would thus believe a word she said?
So far, she has not even had the courage to face the court once in all the actions she has instigated, in my trial, in her defamation action against me and now at Rusty`s trial.She is a disgrace to her former office of Lord Advocate. She is both a disgrace and a liability to Scotland.
In contrast, congratulations are in order for Rusty and his family for their brave, skilful and determined stance.
The case has not yet been dropped, but the Scottish authorities would not just be corrupt and incompetent, which we know already, but downright stupid and self-destructive were they to carry on.
On the face of it, Timothy Rustige (Rusty) is on trial, jury denied as usual in these parts, for allegedly upsetting Elish Angiolini. However, it is not Rusty who will really be on trial , but the integrity of the entire Scottish justice system.
Rusty, a gallant human rights campaigner from Prisoners of Conscience International faces prison – for what – allegedly criticising, from his home in England, the suitability of Angiolini`s publicly-funded appointment to a college at Oxford University. Thus, Rusty could be incarcerated by a regime notorious for its utter contempt for human rights, this time on the say-so of one of its worst practitioners, described as such by Ian Hamilton QC in his interview on BBC TV. Angiolini and her associates were also severely reprimanded by Lord Hope of the Supreme Court for continuous human rights abuses, exemplified by the Peter Cadder case. Furthermore, Elish Angiolini was not only prepared to lie to the whole world in the Lockerbie case about both the conviction and true reason for Mr Al-Megrahi`s release, but also displayed cruel disregard for his basic human rights. What kind of person would state that it was contemptuous, as Angiolini did on 8th September 2009, for a terminally ill man wrongly imprisoned far from his home country, to appeal against a conviction that she already knew was completely unsustainable?
Following the recent posts articles exposing Alex Salmond`s involvement in the Hollie Greig abuse case, here is yet another headline from The Firm magazine`s edition of 1st October 2010:-
The article says that she is stepping down as Lord Advocate but had declined to provide a reason for doing so. It goes on to state that it understands that “she is presently facing further action in respect of a failed appeal against a decision by the Information Commissioner not to disclose whether she used her own or taxpayers` funds in legal actions against the media”.
This refers to her action, implemented by Levy & McRae in 2009, to stop the media from reporting her connection with the Hollie Greig case.
The answer to this obvious public interest query has never been revealed to this day, but I have a letter from the Crown Office confirming that the query from the Commissioner was ignored until Angiolini had left office – but who is there fit to investigate?
Angiolini`s lawyer is Peter Watson of Levy &McRae. Professor Watson also represents Alex Salmond and the Scottish Police, as well as most of the Scottish media, so they are all taking advice from the same lawyer.
If Scotland was run fairly and properly, such a situation demonstrating such blatant conflicts of interest would never be allowed to exist. Moreover, Levy & McRae boasts on its site of employing former senior police officers. Therefore, it could be surely reasonable to suggest that Peter Watson, the firm`s senior partner, has the Scottish police in his pocket. If the professor thinks such an assumption to be unfair, then I should be glad to publish his comments on this site.
When Rusty faces the sheriff, whoever he or she may be, it may be interesting to reflect on the extraordinarily lenient treatment offered to one of Angiolini`s former deputies, Stuart McFarlane.
McFarlane was initially arrested when discovered having sex with a female prostitute in a public place in Glasgow. McFarlane became violent with the two arresting police officers to the extent that both required hospital treatment. I think anyone would expect that any individual causing such injuries to police officers in the course of their duty would face a custodial sentence, but Angiolini`s Crown Office came to McFarlane`s rescue, deciding that it was “not in the public interest” for such a violent sex offender to be jailed. This left McFarlane free to subsequently be arrested again for possessing 15, 000 child pornographic images, some of a horrific nature, according to police sources. Surely, this time, he must be imprisoned, you may well say.
Well no, with an ally like Elish Angiolini, you can get away with anything in Scotland. McFarlane is still at large. It is only those of us who are prepared to expose sex offenders like McFarlane, such as Rusty and me, who must be locked up “in the public interest”. The words of the recently deceased but highly respected Jock Thomson QC come to mind when he described Scotland as a “banana republic” and the Crown Office as “institutionally corrupt”.
So what gives this institutionally corrupt banana republic the right to jail foreigners whose only “crime” it is to stand up for Scottish rape victims and to expose those who protect the perpetrators?
May I again ask for the maximum possible support for Rusty in Aberdeen on 4th and 5th November and for anyone who can attend to be there to bear witness to what may occur in the Scottish Court, as I know from my own experience that it is shamelessly capable of the most disgraceful acts of corruption.
This is not just about the Hollie Greig case, shocking though it is. It is about fundamental human rights, justice and decency. It is about freedom of expression and freedom of the press in a country where such concepts are not allowed to exist.
May the eyes of all those committed to belief in true democracy, civilised behaviour and protection of our most vulnerable citizens from sexual abuse be focussed on Aberdeen and Tim Rustige on 4th and 5th November.
I am awaiting a response from First Minister Alex Salmond to my letter, enclosing key documents supporting Hollie`s case, to his constituency secretary of 3rd October. Mr David Woods, from Mr Salmond`s Edinburgh office, has courteously advised me that a reply will be sent.
It is to be hoped that Mr Salmond will not allow himself to be so ill-informed as to suggest that a “thorough investigation” into Hollie`s allegations has already been undertaken.
No investigation that could possibly be described as such has ever taken place.
However, I have informed the First Minister that the overriding priority is that a full inquiry into Hollie`s case and those connected to it should be proposed. Despite everything that has happened, I am willing to offer my full cooperation and support in a spirit of goodwill should this course of action be taken. I am not especially interested in vengeance or recrimination as long as justice is seen to be done for Hollie Greig and that Scottish children and the disabled receive the state`s protection from sexual abuse to which they are entitled.
If readers would like to be reminded of the evidence Mr Salmond has before him, much of the most salient information can be viewed during my interview that takes place 47 minutes into the show:-http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-live-8th-november-2012
One could only describe the investigation as being thorough if one believes that a) those accused of paedophile rape need never be questioned, b) their computers need not be examined and c) there is no need to check possible forensic evidence. None of these criteria have been met following Hollie`s formal complaint made to DC Lisa Jane Evans, in my presence, on 8th September 2009.
Mr Salmond is also in possession of the Commissioner`s report confirming that Grampian Police withheld crucial evidence supporting Hollie`s claims from the Prosecutor.
The utter inadequacy of Grampian Police in this regard was established on oath during my trial in January 2012. Ten prosecution witnesses testified to this, including DC Evans herself. When questioned by my Counsel, Andy Lamb QC, she confirmed that not one of those identified by Hollie had even been questioned by the police.
The other nine brought forward by the prosecution to testify against me were among those identified by Hollie, although significantly, there was no complaint from the two individuals against whom the evidence was the strongest, Denis Charles Mackie and Greg Mackie, both known to the police prior to Hollie`s initial allegations in May 2000.
First of those named was Sheriff Graham Buchanan, who stated that he thought there could be no possibility of truth in Hollie`s claims as she was supported by David Icke. Thus, he was prepared, purely on the basis of his opinion of Mr Icke, to dismiss entirely the expert witness reports of Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Eva Harding, Dr Paul Carter, Dr Frances Kelly, Grampian Police`s senior forensic medical specialist, D.I. Iain Alley and his fellow officers, Ruth Beckmann and Susannah Seymann of the Down`s Syndrome Association, specialist solicitor Nicola Smith and the entire panel of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority who had decided the weight of evidence sufficient to grant Hollie a financial award.
This came from someone whose solemn public duty it is to dispense justice impartially having considered all the evidence.
What more can one say?
Others named who gave evidence were Carol Low, Ann Royal, Win Dragon, Ian and Helen Macdonald.
Jillian Mackie, sister-in-law of Denis, had recently been a key witness at the trial of Malcolm Webster, convicted of murdering his wife, Claire. Mrs Mackie had been a friend of the murderer.
Mrs Webster died in a very similar circumstances to those of Hollie`s uncle, Robert (Roy) Greig, in a blazing stationary car. The pathologist, who initially saw no reason to suspect foul play in either case, was Dr James Grieve, another of those called to give evidence against me, although I must stress that he was not named by Hollie.
Drew Young, former head of Beechwood Special School, perjured himself when questioned by Mr Lamb about Dr Paul Carter`s reports, the second of which stated that staff at the school had drawn his attention to the likelihood that Hollie was “at risk” sexually. Mr Young told the court he knew nothing about this as he had left the school in July 1992.
Dr Carter`s report was dated 3rd February 1992.
Moreover, Dr Carter had earlier stated to me that Mr Young had definitely been informed.
Sylvia Major, when questioned by Mr Lamb, confirmed that Mr Young had at one time lived at her home.
Mr Lamb asked all nine if they had ever been questioned by the police about Hollie`s allegations. All answered in the negative.
I am aware that many of you have been given dismissive replies when you have approached your MPs or MSPs when you have approached them to assist in the Hollie Greig case. May I again suggest that you then file a complaint with the constituency chairman, attaching copies of the evidence and pointing out that other politicians have had the courage to speak out, including David Ruffley, Andrew George, David Ward, David Anderson, John Hemming, David Mowat, Nigel Farage and Lord Monckton.
Finally, please support and attend, if possible, the trial of Rusty (Timothy Rustige) in Aberdeen on 4th and 5th November. Rusty, a fearless human rights campaigner is facing charges in a country that has been frequently described, even by eminent Scots, such as Jock Thompson QC, Ian Hamilton QC and Lord Hope as having an appalling human rights record.
Witnesses are important as Sheriff Principal Bowen, at my trial, after making a racially offensive remark about me, has subsequently attempted to pervert the course of justice by having the audio record falsified by having his comment deleted.
I expect to give evidence in Rusty`s defence.
Thank you for all your messages of support following the Court of Session hearing, which provided me with an opportunity to discuss vital evidence about Hollie`s case in open court and to quote examples of Angiolini`s appalling record in public office, including her lies over Lockerbie and lack of compassion towards a dying man who ought never have been convicted.
Now it is time for Alex Salmond to face questions over his extraordinarily baffling conduct towards the Hollie Greig case and its overwhelmingly supportive expert witness evidence, including that indicating police corruption, all of which is in his possession.
Let us first go back to The Firm magazine`s headline of 3 June 2011, which read:-
Exclusive: Information Commissioner forces Government response to Hollie Greig inquiries.
The Commissioner has ruled that the Scottish Ministers have failed to comply with their obligations under sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the FOI Act. If the Ministers fail to comply with my decision the Court of Session can treat this failure as a contempt of court.
In the event, the entire Scottish Government came within 24 hours of facing potential criminal charges relating to the Hollie Greig case.
Front page news, overwhelming public interest, surely?
No, Mr Salmond`s personal solicitor, Peter Watson of Levy & McRae, boasts with a good deal of justification that he can keep his clients off the front pages. Good for Professor Watson and good for Mr Salmond, but is it consistent with public interest, freedom of expression and freedom of the press?
Also, the Scottish people must not be made aware of the Hollie Greig case. It must be concealed from the public at all costs, just as the disgusting activities of Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith were in England.
On 11 July 2011 came another headline from The Firm:-
First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations.
The First Minister`s Private Secretary Terry Kowal told The Firm, “I have established that we do not have a record of when the First Minister became aware of the allegations. Therefore, the information you require is not held by the Scottish Government.”
This is a statement of extraordinary inaccuracy.
Apart from the major questions about Hollie`s case posed by the FOI Commissioner, Mr Kevin Dunion, on 28 January 2011, the Crown Office, in its letter by Andrew McIntyre to me of 23 July 2009, referred to my email to Mr Salmond of 20 June 2009 giving details of Hollie`s case and which asked him to intervene. On 1st May 2011, I handed all the key expert witness documents to Mr Salmond in Perth. He undertook to take a look at them after our brief conversation about the case. Then we have the letter from his office to Anne Greig of 2nd October 2007, written by Julie Muir, which says ” Mr Salmond has asked me to thank you for your letter and asked me to reply on his behalf.”
When one considers this terrible case of the uninvestigated rape of a disabled girl in the neighbouring constituency in Aberdeen, how could it be that Mr Salmond remembered nothing about it and given the evidence that he must have known about it, why did he then not take action?
So just how then could his Private Secretary in July 2011, still claim that Mr Salmond had no information on Hollie`s case?
Some might say that Mr Salmond is a busy man and had become inexplicably confused.
Some might say that Mr Salmond has been suspiciously evasive.
Others might even say that the First Minister has lied.
After contacting Alex Salmond`s constituency secretary, Mr Neil Bailey, enclosing again all the main documents, I invited the committee to ask their MSP why he had done nothing to resolve this blatant injustice. I received a letter of acknowledgement today from David Woods from Mr Salmond`s government office in Edinburgh. It reads simply “I am writing to acknowledge your recent letter to Alex Salmond regarding the case of Hollie Greig. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible.”
Of course, despite everything, the prime objective is for a thorough investigation into the Hollie Greig case and those connected to it to take place. I have offered every cooperation to Mr Salmond should he finally decide to take this obvious and honourable course of action, in the public interest.
Please remember that Rusty (Tim Rustige), of Prisoners of Conscience, faces trial by a single sheriff in Aberdeen on 4th and 5th November. He needs as many members of the public to witness the trial as possible. I expect to give evidence on his behalf. His real alleged crime – exposing the rapists of Aberdeen and their high level protectors in the Scottish establishment.
Finally it should not be thought that all of these dreadful coverups take place in Scotland. In Wales, where my background is, there are a number of cases as shocking as Hollie`s in some ways, one of which is the case of Linda Lewis. Linda is fortunate to have a splendid and brave champion in Kevin Edwards. Details of the case can be seen 52 minutes into UK Column`s show of 10th October. Please take a look and offer any support you can to Kevin and Linda.
In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed this post. If you wish, you can read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.
Thank you first to the UK Column Live show today for asking for support, at the start of the programme, for me in Edinburgh on Friday. It is greatly appreciated, given that I have been denied Legal Aid and am opposed to one of Scotland`s most highly qualified QCs , Mr Roddy Dunlop, of Axiom Advocates. Clearly, I am at a great disadvantage, especially in a foreign country whose laws I do not know nor am I obliged to know.
My quest for Legal Aid has not been helped by the fact that one of the Board`s most senior officials, Douglas Haggarty, is himself a sex offender, being caught performing a sexual act with a boy in a toilet in a large store in central Glasgow where families were shopping. Haggarty`s brother Gordon, a clergyman, was convicted of raping an eleven-year-old girl. Anyone doubting the sheer scale of corruption that exists within the Scottish legal hierarchy need surely look no further for an example.
Many people outside Scotland ask why there is not more negative publicity about Elish Angiolini, given that her career has been extremely chequered, to put it as kindly as I can. The most obvious reason for this lies with her solicitor, the well-known Professor Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae.
Here is what the good professor`s firm says about itself.
“We represent the biggest names in print and broadcast media. Included are Channel 4, Channel 5, Granada, Scottish Radio holdings, Sky, SMG and Trinity Mirror.”
Is it any wonder that not one of these organs dared mention “Justice for Hollie Greig” when it was prominently daubed on Jimmy Savile`s highland cottage. Goodness, the Scottish people might well be tempted to try to discover more about Hollie`s case. Levy & McRae can`t possibly allow the Scots to be aware of this, can it?
It may embarrass some of Professor Watson`s high profile clients. The much greater interests of the general public can be disregarded – the ordinary Scots cannot be counted on to remain silent should they uncover the truth about the rape of children and the disabled in their country.
Then “We aim to keep our clients off the front page.”
Levy & McRae are unquestionably good at this, beyond doubt.
Peter Watson personally represents Alex Salmond and Elish Angiolini, with Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill being a former colleague at the firm.
Levy & McRae represents the Police Federation for the whole of Scotland. It also states that it employs former senior police officers. Would I be alone in being concerned about the latter, in particular?
Is there not a temptation for current senior police officers to abandon impartiality if it means risking the prospect of “a nice little earner” at the end of their police service?
Alistair Bonington, legal head of BBC Scotland, said “The test of our courts is to ask whether the decision taking process is being carried out openly and impartially, given the number of conflicting interests represented by Levy & McRae.”
One glaring example of this was when former Glasgow Council leader Steven Purcell was being represented by Levy & McRae when he was subject to a police investigation, the firm was also acting at the same time for the local police chief!
A conflict of interest there, do you think?
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that Levy & McRae `s sheer range of influence compromises the concepts of freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the impartiality of the police and justice system in Scotland?
If Professor Watson, who, I understand, is a regular and loyal reader of this site, feels that my summary is in any way inaccurate or unfair, I shall be glad to publish his comments accordingly.
Finally, Rusty`s (Tim Rustige) trial in Aberdeen has been confirmed for 4th and 5th November. May
I ask for all possible support for Rusty, who deserves it for his unquenchable bravery and integrity?
Of course, following the debacle of the kangaroo court in Stonehaven in my case, it will not be Rusty who is really on trial, but the Scottish justice system. The world will be watching for any further attempts to cover up the Hollie Greig case by persecuting those brave enough to stand up for Scottish children and the disabled against the Scottish establishment which collaborates in protecting their tormentors.
The next Angiolini hearing is due to take place at 10.00hrs at the Court of Session, Parliament Square, Edinburgh on Friday, the 18th October.
Supporters of Hollie and of me have gallantly turned out in support on many court occasions in Scotland, some of whom have even travelled from the south of England to attend. I am very grateful for this and always will be. If anyone is able to come along and witness the proceedings, I should really appreciate it, particularly as we now know that the Scottish Courts are perfectly capable of falsifying solemn court evidence when it suits them to do so. This has been the case over Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen`s racist statement made on 17th February 2012. More of that will be mentioned soon, but further recent information points firmly to a criminal act by Bowen and others to conspire to pervert the course of justice, misconduct supported by the Lord President himself, Lord Gill. No defendant in any criminal case in Scotland can be absolutely sure of a fair hearing anymore.
So far, I have received no response from Alex Salmond`s constituency office, as mentioned in the previous post, but there is plenty of time yet.
However, it is very important to stress that those of us in England or Wales are not in a particularly strong position when criticising the unstinting efforts of the Scottish government in covering up the sexual abuse of children.
Prolonged state protection for Jimmy Savile is there for all to see, although the Cyril Smith case, so well presented by Channel 4 in its recent Dispatches programme, is also very disturbing. Nothing whatsoever was done to stop these two criminals whilst they were alive, presumably on the grounds of “security”, whatever that is supposed to mean, but exactly whose security are we talking about?
The security of those defenceless children who suffered horrific ordeals at the hands of these two serial monsters is clearly not a matter for state concern. It is not who you know, but what you know about those you know.
The state has deemed that certain celebrities, preferably dead ones, are relatively expendable and can thus be thrown to the wolves. Additionally those paedophiles from run down areas, from the gay community, the Muslim community, Roman Catholic clergy and those of African origin can sometimes be indignantly exposed in the mainstream media, even by the paedophile-infested BBC.
Powerful and influential whites, however, particularly those who are politicians, prominent journalists, members of the judiciary, senior police officers and most social workers can largely expect the benefit of de facto immunity from prosecution should they wish to indulge themselves in sexual crimes against children and the disabled.
In the Hollie Greig case, the state, in both Scotland and England, continues to openly collude with Hollie`s rapist father against Hollie`s brave and devoted mother and even against Hollie herself.
Such is the sickening power of the child-abusing elite that infects our once great land.
How much longer are British people prepared to look the other way while our children and the disabled are being systematically raped?
Who dares to speak up?
I would like to thank so many of you who have written to their respective MPs or MSPs, urging them to offer support regarding the blatant miscarriage and perversion of justice surrounding the case of Hollie Greig.
With some notable exceptions, including Andrew George MP, David Ruffley MP, David Ward MP, David Anderson MP and John Hemming MP, as well as Gerard Batten MEP and Nigel Farage and Lord Monckton of UKIP, the majority are frankly, too insular and spineless to make a stand, stating basically “it`s nothing to do with me”.
This attitude is disgraceful.
When I was first approached to ask if I could help Hollie and Anne Greig it had “nothing to do with me” either. I did not know the ladies, nor had I ever been to Aberdeen, where the crimes took place. It wasn`t even my country. However, based on the strength of the expert witness evidence it was perfectly clear that from the outset that not only had terrible crimes been committed, but also that the relevant Scottish authorities had failed in their duties to conduct an adequate investigation. Moreover, the nature of the crimes and the likelihood of the number of people involved indicated that a serious risk to children and the disabled, particularly in the Aberdeen area, continued to exist.
That is why I decided that it was my moral and lawful duty as a citizen to do the best I could to rectify this unacceptable state of affairs and why I subsequently refused to be intimidated into silence by the Scottish Crown Office.
Some politicians have tried to shift the responsibility to Hollie`s MP, Owen Paterson, the Environment Minister, but his close associate on the Conservative-controlled Shropshire Council, Aggie Caesar-Homden, was one of the chief instigators of the completely unjustified ransacking raid on Hollie`s home on 3rd June 2010, so not much can be expected from Mr Paterson in defence of his disabled, multiple-rape victim constituent.
One suggestion that is proving to have some effect is by contacting your MP or MSP`s constituency chairman in order to complain about the lack of interest. It should be circulated to the local committee, who will then ask the politician concerned for an explanation for such inaction. With that in mind, I have now written to Alex Salmond`s constituency office in Aberdeenshire to complain about his abject refusal to stand up for a local disabled rape victim. I have forwarded all the main expert witness documents to be circulated to the committee and reminded the office that I personally handed copies of these same documents to Mr Salmond in Perth on 1st May 2011. He told me that he would take a look at them. Also included was the confirmation that Grampian Police had withheld two crucial expert statements wholly supportive of Hollie`s claims from the Prosecutor, one of which identified a police officer amongst the alleged abusers.
If anyone feels that they would like to follow this up, the address is as follows:-
Mr Neil Bailey
23 Nelfred Terrace
Tel. no.01467 670070
On a very sad note, I was very sorry to hear about the untimely death of one of Scotland`s bravest and eminent QCs, Jock Thomson. Although I never had the opportunity of meeting Mr Thomson, he was to be initially my defence Counsel, but unfortunately had to withdraw due to a possible conflict of interest.
It was Mr Thomson who had the courage to publicly condemn the Crown Office as “institutionally corrupt”. There can be no doubt that he was absolutely correct about that.
Writing in The Firm magazine on 2nd October, Steven Raeburn says that “His career in the law made him the perfect candidate for the role of Lord Advocate, a role that many of his esteemed colleagues knew he was born to fill. That he was never installed in the post is, in these strangled, decrepit, degraded, impotent days a rank of honour. He was simply too good to occupy that diminished, discredited office. He was not afraid to take on the Crown Office over its drift into vendetta convictions.
Scotland has lost one of its best men.
Instead, the people of Scotland ended up with Elish Angiolini as Lord Advocate. Her next defamation action hearing against me is due to take place again at the Court of Session , Edinburgh on Friday 18th October. I should be very pleased if anyone can attend once again and will soon provide further details. I have been most grateful to all those who have come along, some even from England, to stand by me in past hearings.
It is interesting to re-read earlier comments by those involved in trying to dismiss Hollie`s claims.
When the Crown Office first advised Anne Greig, on 4th December 2009, that it was not taking any action over Hollie`s detailed allegations, Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan concluded that the decision was made purely on the grounds of “insufficient evidence”, nothing more. Of course, we now know that not a single one of those named by Hollie on 8th September 2009, in my presence and supported by extensive expert witness evidence, was even so much as questioned by Grampian Police.
When I first spoke in the Commons about the case on 30th November 2011, I shared the platform with two excellent young officers from South Wales Police, who had successfully brought Colin Batley and others to justice in the Kidwelly satanist ritual abuse case. The officers told the audience that the normal police procedure in cases of alleged paedophile rings is not only to question those accused, but also to examine their computers. In Hollie`s case, Grampian Police did neither. No wonder Mr MacGowan was able to describe the evidence as “insufficient”. No attempt whatsoever had been made to obtain any meaningful evidence.
On the basis of the contents of Mr MacGowan`s letter, my legal team suggested he be cited as number one witness for the defence. He refused to face cross-examination and like Angiolini later, his decision was supported by Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen, thus depriving me of another key defence witness.
On 3rd May 2011, Frank Mulholland, Lord Advocate, responded to a query about the Hollie Greig case to Conservative government minister David Ruffley, who had bravely voiced his opinion that Hollie had been treated appallingly by the Scottish justice system. The reasons for the failure to act had now been inexplicably extended to lack of “admissible, credible or reliable evidence” in addition to “insufficient”. It can be concluded that the Lord Advocate was thus dismissing the expert witness evidence of Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Eva Harding, Dr Paul Carter, Dr Frances Kelly, D.I.Iain Alley and other police officers, Ruth Beckmann and Susannah Seymann of the Downs` Syndrome Association and the entire panel of the CICA, to a minister of Her Majesty`s Government.
May I now turn to Peter Anderson, of Simpson & Marwick, representing Sheriff Graham Buchanan in his action against me, after the latter`s agent had stalked me in Aberdeen on 12th February 2010 before I had been served or had knowledge of an interdict.
On the 8th March 2010, Mr Anderson admitted that of Dr Eva Harding`s analysis, “It does conclude that Hollie was sexually abused by her father and brother over a long period from childhood.” He continues by saying that “it may well be the case that Hollie was the subject of sexual abuse by her father and brother. It may be the case that she has been the subject of sexual abuse by others”.
What makes this particularly interesting is that Mr Anderson was inadvertently discussing one of his own firm`s clients, Hollie`s father!
Although Mr Anderson initially denied that he represented both Sheriff Buchanan and Denis Mackie, I was able to produce a document confirming that it was indeed the case. Mr Anderson had no option but to retract his earlier assertion.
It is illuminating to learn that even Hollie`s father`s solicitor appears to share the same suspicions as all the expert witnesses.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Buchanan, under cross-examination at my trial, decided to dismiss all the detailed expert witness evidence supporting Hollie as untrue, “because David Icke believed in it”.
David Icke was also the only public figure to have the guts to accuse Jimmy Savile of his shocking crimes whilst he was alive. Perhaps Sheriff Buchanan may now wish to reflect on his irrational prejudice.
In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed this post. If you wish, you can read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.
I outlined the disgraceful and illogical decision of Lady Smith, supported by Lord Brian Gill, Lord President, in my last post, in an obvious effort to cover up the serious crimes of fellow judge Edward Bowen. Can any defendant, even of bad character, be confident of receiving a fair hearing in Scotland where the Lord President, the most senior judge in the country, actually endorses the criminal falsification of recordings of solemn court evidence?
It may also be of general interest that the European Union has published a document describing Scotland has having the most expensive and inefficient legal system in the whole of the EU. It seems that the Scottish legal establishment appropriate more public funds, from a population of 5 million, than Italy`s equivalent takes from a population of 60 million!
When I last spoke in the House of Commons in March, I urged the government to act in the interests of those 5 million British citizens living under this dreadful regime, best described as a rogue state with an appalling human rights record. The latter view has been expressed by no less a figure than Scotland`s most eminent legal elder statesman Iain Hamilton QC, in a BBC Scotland interview. He also publicly blamed Elish Angiolini for the shocking state of affairs that still exists within the borders of the United Kingdom. Mr Cameron would be far more usefully employed addressing this problem in Scotland than making empty threats over human rights abuses in Syria.
Many of you, I`m sure, are aware of the excellent Channel 4 programme, “Dispatches”, bravely and effectively exposing the scandal of repeated high-level covering up of Cyril Smith`s relentless crimes against children, apparently in the interests of “security”, without any regard for the horrors suffered by his defenceless victims.
Just who`s security are we talking about here. Is it national security, or could it be the security of Smith and his child-raping accomplices?
I think the British people have a right to know.
If you have not seen the film, I recommend that you watch it. It is still available on David Icke`s site, I understand.
Many of the long-running official covering up of paedophile crimes have centred on children`s homes. The cases of Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile, Haut de la Garenne in Jersey and the North Wales homes immediately come to mind. The Scottish authorities, that is, if they have the slightest interest in protecting their own children and the disabled from sexual abuse, should take a look at the former Beechwood Special School in Aberdeen, where Hollie Greig was a pupil. As mentioned previously, the head teacher, Drew Young, perjured himself at my trial when cross-examined by my Counsel, Andy Lamb QC, over the reports by Dr Paul Carter, the school`s medical officer in 1990 and 1992, the contents clearly indicating that Hollie was sexually at risk.
Finally, I really should thank all those of you who worry about my safety, due to my direct style of exposing those involved in corruption and sometimes, evil itself. My view is that it is better to die with honour than to live as a coward, particularly relevant when it is related to protecting vulnerable children and the disabled. How much horror and misery would have been spared if someone who knew about Savile and Smith had spoken out publicly at the time?
As far as I know, only David Icke had the guts and compassion to do so.
Also, is there any one person currently in the Scottish parliament who might agree with my opinion?
There can now be no doubt about it.
As readers may know from previous posts, Bowen made an extraordinary outburst at my sentencing hearing on 17th February 2012 that no one present could have anticipated. After I had publicly challenged him about his concealed ten-year relationship with cited defence witness Elish Angiolini, he said something like this during his sentencing statement.
” How dare you, an Englishman, come to Scotland to tell us what to do?
We know how to run the justice system here in Scotland.”
This was spoken in a crowded open court and was being recorded by audio.
When I received a printed copy from the Crown Office a few weeks later of the speech, the two sentences above had been omitted. I asked the Court about this inaccuracy and why these remarks were missing. Having received no plausible explanation , I asked Elaine McLeod, the Sheriff Clerk at Stonehaven Court for a copy of the audio. This was denied to me. I thus proceeded to make a formal complaint to the Judicial Office of Scotland. Eventually, Lord Eassie ordered an investigation, appointing Lady Smith to conduct it.
Lady Smith ordered that the audio be produced. A written transcript, said to be taken directly from the audio, was sent to me prior to my being interviewed by Lady Smith on 3rd July 2013. The copy not only differed significantly from the original document, but also omitted the two key sentences. It was now clear that a serious criminal offence had occurred, the falsification and tampering with of official Court records. I made this perfectly clear to her Ladyship during the course of the interview.
Afterwards, I recalled that Lady Smith`s name had appeared on a previous court document in 2010, supporting a legal action by Sheriff Graham Buchanan against me, presented by solicitor Peter Anderson, of Simpson & Marwick. I wrote to Lord Eassie to ask if this may be considered to be a possible conflict of interest and whether Lady Smith had disclosed this at the time of her appointment. So far, no response to my query has been received and no confirmation yet as to whether Lord Eassie has actually seen my letter or if it had been intercepted by a Court official. Marisa Strutt, at the Judicial Office, is so far unable to confirm whether Lord Eassie has had sight of my letter addressed to him dated 25th July 2013, referring to Lady Smith.
This could become a further issue, as Ms Strutt has told me that it would not be appropriate for His Lordship to enter into correspondence with me. It would be if I have discovered that he may have been misled. Given Lady Smith`s bizarre and illogical conclusion that effectively exonerates Edward Bowen and implies, without any reasonable justification, that I have lied, I surely have a right to know if any inappropriate behaviour on Lady Smith`s part has taken place.
Simpson and Marwick has not only represented Sheriff Buchanan in connection with the Hollie Greig case, but also Hollie`s father, Denis Charles Mackie, which I brought to Mr Anderson`s attention. Interestingly, he initially denied that this was the case, but was forced to retract when I produced a document from his firm confirming that what I said was indeed the truth.
I have now received a letter from the Judicial Office for Scotland stating that Lady Smith has decided that my complaint is “without foundation”. Lady Smith has based her conclusion on conversations with Bowen, Elaine McLeod and an audio and Crown Office documents that have clearly been fabricated in order to protect Bowen. When I made my complaint and met Lady Smith, I made it clear that a number of those present in court that day had nobly offered to provide sworn statements as to what they heard Bowen say. Lady Smith has therefore based her opinion on the two people who have every reason to lie and ignored all of those who have no logical reason to do so.
Edward Bowen has therefore not only made an offensive and discriminatory remark, has lied to Lady Smith in denying that he did so and has clearly been complicit in the falsification of Court records. He is thus a criminal.
During his tirade against me, Bowen said “By your campaign you have sought to undermine the criminal justice system and Government of Scotland as a whole”. It is conduct such as Bowen`s that has undermined the system.
There have been many examples of false convictions in Scotland, notably including that of Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi, but it seems that it falls to me to have the dubious distinction of actually being sent to prison by a criminal!
By Bowen`s actions, he has effectively exposed the false front, rot and decay that lies at the heart of the Scottish criminal justice system and the Scottish Government.
The eminent and well-respected Jock Thomson QC was absolutely right when he courageously stated publicly that the Crown Office is institutionally corrupt. If only more senior members of the legal profession, MSPs and editors possessed a similar degree of bravery, Scotland would be a much better place.
The Scottish people in general have been wonderful in their support for Hollie Greig, for justice, for the protection of Scottish children and the disabled and for me personally, despite the almost total blackout of the case by the mainstream media. Two gallant Scots have already gone to jail and countless others have risked arrest at the hands of the current regime for merely trying to raise awareness of this horrific issue that is transparently in the public interest.
These are the true Scots, patriotic, brave and humane, a credit to their country and worthy of its well-deserved reputation for valour.
Unfortunately, these fine qualities are not immediately apparent within the higher echelons of Scottish politics, the police, the judiciary or most media editors. Therefore, I would be grateful for any suggestions in identifying even one Scot among the establishment with the degree of integrity and courage sufficient to publicly stand up for Scottish child and disabled rape victims.
It is fair to say that I have found a number whose compassion and sympathy cannot be questioned, but not one also possessing the cardinal virtue of bravery, a necessity in the circumstances. All seem to be terrified of the possibility of repercussions by the regime should they speak out.
It is interesting to note that of all those politicians who have publicly expressed support for Hollie Greig and spoken about the injustices and irregularities surrounding the case, not one of them is Scottish.
Four of us have already sacrificed our freedom in trying to perform our humanitarian duty in trying to protect our fellow British citizens, our most vulnerable people, who would otherwise be left defenceless in Scotland.
A more glaring example of mass cowardice by a national parliament could scarcely be imagined. Not a single member of the Scottish parliament has yet demonstrated the courage to protect its own children and the disabled from the terrors of sexual abuse. It constitutes a most shameful scandal of the first magnitude.
I am still awaiting the result of the investigation ordered by the Judicial Office for Scotland and led by Lady Smith, into the conduct of Sheriff Principal Bowen at my trial, in particular his discriminatory outburst against me and the fact that his bigoted remark and the sentence following was subsequently found to have been omitted from the official Court audio when this recording was placed before Lady Smith during the investigation. The Court had consistently refused to supply me with a copy of the recording for over a year until ordered by Lady Smith to comply with her order to provide one to the investigation.
A little more scrutiny into the parts of the statement at the sentencing hearing that were accurately recorded would not go amiss either. On the issue of sworn verbal evidence provided by the nine of those named by Hollie Greig as abusers who were called by the prosecution, Sheriff Principal Bowen unequivocally concluded that he accepted their word that they were all innocent, completely disregarding the expert witness documents that suggested that there may be another possibility. He had never met Hollie or heard her evidence. All nine confirmed that they had never even been questioned by the police following Hollie`s formal complaint and identifications of 8th September 2009, made to the police in my presence.
One of the nine had been identified as a “probable abuser” in Dr Eva Harding`s detailed statement, which fully supported Hollie`s allegations, her truthfulness and her competence to make them.
Another of the nine, Andrew Young, former head teacher of Beechwood Special School, was questioned by my Counsel, Andy Lamb QC about the two expert witness documents of 1990 and 1992 prepared by the school`s medical officer, Dr Paul Carter, the contents of both indicating quite clearly the probability that Hollie was “at risk” sexually. Mr Lamb highlighted specifically the 1992 report, which stated that “more recently, staff at Beechwood School have been concerned that Hollie`s behaviour suggests she has some sexual experience inappropriate for a girl of her age” (she was 12). Dr Carter also made specific reference to his earlier report.
Readers may be reminded that Hollie`s mother knew absolutely nothing about these two documents or their contents until she managed to acquire them in October 2009, a month after Hollie had been interviewed by the police. When these were discovered, I rang Dr Carter, who was shocked to learn that not only had no apparent action been taken by the Aberdeen authorities, but that this vital information had been concealed from Hollie`s mother. He confirmed that his findings had been passed to all those he thought to be responsible for Hollie`s safety, including Mr Young. Naturally, as a potential crucial expert witness, Dr Carter anticipated being called by Grampian Police.
However, when Mr Lamb confronted Mr Young in Court on this issue, the latter stated categorically that he knew nothing about them as he had left the school in July, 1992.
Dr Carter`s report was dated 3rd February 1992.
This evidence did not prevent Sheriff Principal Bowen from declaring that anyone who failed to be convinced of the veracity of this witness`s statement must have a “twisted mind”.
Not only did the discovery of these two documents add even more weight to Hollie`s allegations, but also provided a clear indication that the authorities may well have been covering up a probable sexual abuse crime for much longer than had first been thought. With these two important points in mind, I forwarded copies on immediately in October 2009 to Grampian Police, who were supposed to be in the middle of investigating the case, to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and to the then Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini. In addition, I copied in the head of Aberdeen`s Education Department, Rhona Jarvis.
There has been no indication whatsoever that any of the individuals concerned took any action at all on receipt of this alarming evidence. I understand that shortly afterwards, Ms Jarvis was given “early retirement”, accompanied by a generous payment by Aberdeen Council.
Later that year, I also copied in Councillor Alan Donnelly, former head of the Conservative group in Aberdeen Council. Councillor Donnelly was called by the prosecution to give evidence against me at my trial. He failed to attend. No explanation for his absence was provided.
Dr Carter confirmed to me that no attempt whatsoever had been made by Grampian Police to contact him as part of its so-called “thorough investigation”.
The Daily Record`s headline of 15th August reads as follows:- “BBC Scotland staff accused of sex abuse in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, bosses admit”.
Is it any wonder then that BBC Scotland refused to show the people of Scotland that “Justice For Hollie Greig” had been daubed on the walls of Jimmy Savile`s Glencoe cottage at the height of the scandal?
Is it surprising, with what we now know, that BBC Scotland abruptly dropped commissioned documentaries of Hollie`s case four years ago?
In addition, another of the Record`s lead stories reads “Ex-Headmaster of Aberdeen school at centre of sexual abuse allegations”.
Meanwhile, the inverted and twisted world bizarrely known as the Scottish “justice” system carries on as usual. This is how depraved and sometimes dangerous sex criminals are treated.
Again, in the Daily Record yesterday, it tells of Colin Aikman walking free after being caught downloading child pornography images.
Please take it from me that plenty of my fellow prisoners in Aberdeen Jail were fundamentally decent lads who had made mistakes, often when placed in difficult situations. At the same time, the really serious criminals remain at large. Scotland treats its sex offenders with kid gloves, especially if those concerned have connections with the country`s notorious magic circle. On the other hand, those who try to protect Scotland`s children from such predators, like two brave Scots, as well as Rusty and me, end up in jail.
Here again are some examples of how sex offenders with influence are treated.
Stuart McFarlane, a former deputy to Elish Angiolini, has twice been arrested for serious sex offences, the second involving children. On the first occasion, McFarlane even attacked the two arresting police officers, causing them to have to receive hospital treatment for the injuries sustained.
Surely, you will say, this individual has been sent to prison?
No, this is Scotland.
Scottish Legal Aid Board`s Technical Head Douglas Haggarty was caught performing a sex act with a boy in a Glasgow city centre store`s toilet.
Did he go to jail?
No, not only was he not incarcerated, but was allowed to retain his highly paid post, funded by the public, which involves being in a position of considerable trust and responsibility over public finances.
Around the same time I was given a year`s sentence, Liam Gibson, a major oil executive, who ran Gibson Marine, was found in possession of 50,000 child pornographic images, described by police officers as the most sickening they had ever seen.
Did Mr Gibson go to jail?
Of course not, he is too important – he walked free.
Scotland is a wonderful country, beyond doubt and the vast majority of Scots are among the finest people you will find anywhere in the world. However, its current regime and justice system in particular, under Alex Salmond, is widely regarded as being the most corrupt in Europe. The EU`s official research shows Scotland to have the most expensive yet unproductive legal system in Europe, with its lawyers earning tens of millions of euros more from a country with a population of
5 million that Italy`s lawyers earn from a population of 60 million. Scotland`s judges are also the most highly paid in Europe.
I noticed that Mr Salmond recently complained that many in the mainstream were against him.
They are not.
They are currently protecting him, in fact.
If the Scottish mainstream media was to publish the truth about Alex Salmond, including his role in the Hollie Greig case, both he and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill would be finished.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Referring to my previous blog, further interesting stories about Scotland have been published. One of them is by Roy Greenslade in The Guardian , entitled “Twitter Email Leaks about Rangers Too Hot for Scottish Media to Handle”
This is not the only issue to which this headline should apply – the Scottish Law Reporter, mentioning the Rangers story, indicates that “knowledge of dirty secrets of newspaper editors could be used to block publication of stories relating to Rangers”.
I have frequently alluded to the timidity of the Scottish media in relation to publishing details of Hollie`s case, the extraordinary criminal charges laid against me, Angiolini`s private action against me and the equally astonishing Scottish state persecution of the Rustige family in England. Of course, the comment above in the previous paragraph cannot be proven, but it would seem the only plausible conclusion that may be drawn at the moment to explain the total shutdown of the Scottish media relating to publishing anything supportive of Hollie Greig. Even at the height of the Jimmy Savile scandal, when his Glencoe cottage was daubed “Justice For Hollie Greig”, no Scottish outlet dared publish photographs or even report on it, despite it being widely circulated on the internet. The Scottish people must be left in the dark over Hollie Greig, at all costs. How might they react if they were given the opportunity to learn the truth?
One other issue, that appeared in The Scotsman today, was that confidential documents on child protection issues from Aberdeen Social Services have been found on a skip in Dundee!
Of course, key documents from the same department relating to Hollie and Anne that would incriminate certain individuals in Social Services, two of whom were named by Hollie, have also “disappeared”. Perhaps this is where they ended up too.
It may be of interest to publish some of the comments from politicians over the widespread dissatisfaction with the way Hollie`s case has been handled by the Scottish authorities.
Andrew George MP (Lib Dem) states “There seems to be a lot of evidence and allegations which point in one direction and indicate that this whole case deserves a thorough review – both in relation to Hollie`s father and many of the professionals with whom Hollie came into contact who have allegedly failed in their duties or even covered up important facts”.
David Ruffley MP, Government Minister (Conservative) says “The case of Hollie Greig is appalling. It seems that the Crown Office has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to bring proceedings.But why then has Hollie received compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority?”
Since Mr Ruffley wrote those words, we now know that not one of the twenty-nine potential corroborative witnesses was even questioned by the police following Hollie`s interview of 8th September 2009 with DC Lisa Jane Evans, at which I was present.
David Ward MP (Lib Dem) , mentions the comments of Andrew George, adding that Hollie had made allegations against a senior police officer (deceased) and a serving sheriff. He goes on to say that “Medical evidence can be sufficient to secure a conviction but the authorities must have the resolve to pursue these cases. Police forces must treat rape more seriously and be prepared to bring charges even without a formal complaint by the victim”.
John Hemming MP (Lib Dem) , discussing my imprisonment over Hollie`s case states that “I would personally like to see the establishment of a parliamentary committee to look at a number of murky cases of which Hollie`s (and yours) is one.
Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, refers to the case as “strange and highly suspicious”, going on to reiterate his support for me in the General Election for my “remarkable and principled stand”.
Lastly, Sara Payne, in her role as Victims` Champion, wrote “I am extremely saddened to hear of the appalling abuse Hollie has suffered”.
It may be worth noting that every one of these comments was written before the exposure of Savile and his evil accomplices.
For those of you who have recently joined those following the blog, you can see some of the overwhelmingly supportive expert witness evidence on which I relied, by viewing the UK Column Live on 8th November 2012. Please note that you will need to scroll along to 47 minutes before I appear, with documents being clearly shown.
So what indeed are the Scottish media, politicians and legal profession still so scared of?
The documents you can view have been in the hands of the three Scottish Parliament Opposition Leaders named below for some time now, along with the SNP`s John Swinney, widely regarded as the most honest member of the ruling SNP regime.
They may well be asked, in the interests of Scottish child and disabled rape victims, when they propose to question Alex Salmond or Kenny MacAskill about the Hollie Greig case. If either of these gentlemen should dare to claim that a “thorough investigation has taken place”, they will be talking absolute nonsense.
The trial of courageous human rights activist Rusty (Tim Rustige), of Prisoners of Conscience International, is to take place in Aberdeen on 4th and 5th November. Like me, Rusty has been denied the opportunity of going before a jury by the notoriously discredited Crown Office and is to have his fate decided by a single sheriff, who may or may not be corrupt. On recent form, it is hard to see how the current regime could face the prospect of a jury finding Rusty innocent, which I believe would also have occurred in my trial. How could Alex Salmond`s Scotland possibly be run these days without show trials to persecute people from England who have had the audacity to stand up for vulnerable Scottish citizens?
Elish Angiolini, the instigator of the cruel and disgraceful police persecution of Rusty and his family in England, is now to be issued with a subpoena to appear for cross-examination at Rusty`s trial, the first person to have held the post of Lord Advocate in Scottish history to be subject to such an order, I understand.
Followers of the Hollie Greig case will be aware that Angiolini was also cited by my Counsel, Mr Andy Lamb QC, to appear for the defence at my trial. One would have expected that someone with nothing to hide would have welcomed the chance to tell the truth publicly on oath , but Angiolini refused to attend. Her decision, which weakened my prospects of a successful defence, was backed by the Sheriff, Edward Bowen, who was later found to have had a ten-year association with her, which he concealed from the Court.
At a hearing on 1st May this year, in connection with Angiolini`s subsequent defamation action against me, she had somehow failed to inform her Counsel, Mr Roddy Dunlop QC, of Axiom Advocates, that she had indeed been cited at my trial and had declined to attend. This was only discovered during a conversation after the hearing with Mr Dunlop and Angiolini`s solicitor, Mr Fred Tyler. Thus Mr Dunlop was placed in the position of entering the Court in order to represent a client who had withheld crucial information from him. Had she given sworn evidence at my trial, there would surely have been little need for the subsequent defamation action, as I would have had no hesitation in apologising for any allegations made against her that could have been established as being unfounded. I was not given that opportunity and the public still do not know the truth behind the correspondence with her about Hollie Greig by Brian Adam MSP, as described in his letters of 27 October and 28 November 2000. We do not know more about the admitted intervention over the case with Angiolini by Scottish government minister Richard Lochhead around the same period. Nor were we granted the chance to discover the background to Elish Angiolini`s own letter to Anne Greig`s solicitor dated 12th July 2001, relating to this particularly shocking case that Angiolini later claimed she had little information about.
Perhaps we may learn more about the true facts in open court in November and even the reason for her self-evident reluctance to face questioning under oath.
May I urge all of those who believe in truth, justice and fundamental human rights, especially in relation to the rights of children and the disabled to be protected by the state from sexual abuse, to try to attend court in Aberdeen in support of Rusty and all of those who care sufficiently enough to stand up and be counted.
Many courageous Scots have taken personal risks to speak up for Hollie and for me, but none of those brave people are politicians, lawyers or from Scottish TV, radio or the mainstream press. Is there not one person within these professions with the guts to even question Alex Salmond about Hollie Greig?
Who or what are they so scared of?
In response to the many questions from supporters of Hollie`s case and those who have been kind enough to continue to care about my own treatment at the hands of the current Scottish regime, no reply has yet been received in connection with the official investigation relating to Sheriff Principal Bowen`s staggering racist outburst directed at me in court, witnessed by some readers of this site, nor of the even more astonishing fact that the official Court audio recording has been falsified by omitting the offending sentences.
Also awaited is the result of the Scottish Police Authority`s investigation into the conduct of Chief Constable Sir Stephen House, who has consistently refused to address the question of precisely what fundamental actions he would expect of Scottish police in order to satisfy him that a “thorough investigation” into rape allegations had taken place when a victim described as competent and truthful has identified her alleged attackers, backed by expert witness documentary evidence.
With regard to Elish Angiolini`s civil case against me of defamation, I have requested of the Court that an order should be made to compel Angiolini to disclose documentation of her expenses claims on the public purse, under the terms of the Administration of Justice Act.
Additionally, Angiolini`s solicitor, Mr Fred Tyler, of Balfour & Manson has been sent a letter from me, containing the following:-
“Please supply complete provenance of with regard to private and confidential emails between me and journalists Mr Peter Cherbi and Mr Brian Gerrish that you produced in the bundle on behalf of the pursuer, to be used against me.
Kindly disclose, in particular, the full correspondence in connection with these emails involving your firm, solicitors Levy &McRae, and COPFS and confirm precisely how these documents came to be in your possession, their authenticity, how the Crown office obtained them and who authorised them to be provided for the use of the pursuer in a civil case.
At present, it would be reasonable to suggest that concealing the provenance of such material from the Court may be viewed as an attempt to deny me a fair hearing.
Failure to comply with my request will result in an application to the Court for full disclosure under the terms of the Administration of Justice Act.”
Levy & McRae is the law firm which today represents Alex Salmond and with whom Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was formerly employed. It also represents Elish Angiolini.
Finally, I am also still awaiting, after three and a half years, the return of my property, seized from my home in Cheshire by Grampian Police, whilst I was being held in custody in Aberdeen as I was about to begin my campaign as prospective parliamentary candidate for Aberdeen South in the 2010 General Election. Included amongst the items taken was the hard drive from my computer.
On the 5th June, I was told by the Procurator Fiscal`s Office in Aberdeen that a letter had been sent to the police instructing them to return my property to me. I am still waiting.
Could it be that all these delays may possibly be attributed to the prospect of the Scottish regime having something to hide?
Regular readers will know of the incredibly lenient way that actual sex abusers in Scotland are treated, so long as they have powerful connections. Here is the latest example, as published in the Scottish Law Reporter on 30th July.
Nathan Brailsford threatened to rape a young woman, using the medium of Twitter to do so. Despite the gravity of this shocking conduct, with the dreadful effect it must have had on the woman and those around her, the Crown Office decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute. Nathan Brailsford is the son of a top Scottish judge, Lord Brailsford.
May I just remind everyone of other cases that fall into a similar category.
Stuart MacFarlane, a state prosecutor and formerly a deputy to former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini, was found performing a sex act in public in 2005 with a female prostitute in Glasgow. MacFarlane then went on to physically assault the two police officers who arrested them, causing them to receive hospital treatment. One would have expected nothing less than a custodial sentence in such circumstances, but no, the Crown Office did not think fit to pursue this action. A few years later, after being let off, MacFarlane was discovered to be in possession of some 15,000 child pornographic images, including ones involving sadism and sex with animals. Incredible though it may seem to those unfamiliar with the level of corruption in Scotland, MacFarlane remains a free man.
Douglas Haggarty, Technical Head of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, was arrested in 2009 for indulging in a sex act with a boy in the public toilets of a Glasgow store. Not only did Haggarty not receive a prison sentence, he was even allowed to retain his lucrative and responsible position of trust at the Legal Aid Board. It is staggering, isn`t it?
Around the same time that I received a twelve month sentence for trying to protect Scottish children and the disabled from such perverts, Liam Gibson, senior oil executive, was found guilty of possessing over 50,000 child porn images, described by the police as some of the worst examples they had ever seen. Gibson also admitted a desire for 11 and 12 year old boys.
Did Gibson go to prison – of course not, this is the Scottish justice system!
Contrast this with not only my case, but with the disgraceful persecution of brave English human rights activist Tim Rustige (Rusty) and his family.
In Scottish eyes, if no one else`s, Rusty`s alleged crime was unspeakable in comparison to the others I have mentioned. He is said to have actually dared to offer the opinion that Elish Angiolini, former head of the Crown Office, may not have been an entirely suitable candidate for a well-paid post in England. It is awful, isn`t it?
The poor woman, what must she have gone through in comparison to child rape victims?
The Crown Office certainly considers this “crime”far worse that raping children, threatening to rape women, collecting thousands of sickening child pornographic images or attacking police officers. It decided that it was in the public interest to charge Rusty, who is due to appear in Aberdeen on 4th and 5th November, to be tried, as I was, by a single sheriff and like me, denied a jury trial.
Rusty and I share a common misfortune of not being associated with Scotland`s corrupt magic circle elite.
Does anyone think my summary unfair?
Sheriff Principal Bowen included in his sentencing comments, “By your campaign you have sought to undermine the criminal justice system and the Government of Scotland”. In fact, it is Sheriff Principal Bowen who personifies everything that is wrong in the system by his undisguised bias, bigotry and dishonesty that points firmly to the rot and decay that exists at the system`s heart, supported by corrupt or weak politicians who couldn`t even care less about Scottish children and the disabled being raped. The integrity of Scotland is thus undermined by Bowen and his like, not by me.
These comments were made by Bowen on 17th February 2012.
Nothing seems to have changed.
The current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, is still refusing to provide an assurance to the Court in respect of the civil action against me by his predecessor, Elish Angiolini, in that her private action is not publicly funded. Therefore, I have asked the Court of Session to issue an order, under the terms of the Administration of Justice Act, to direct Angiolini to disclose documentation of her own expenses claims on the public purse in regard to this case.
Of course, it is the same Mr Mulholland who has claimed that “a thorough investigation into the Hollie Greig case has been undertaken” – to put it bluntly, complete rubbish, as we now know that following Hollie`s interview of 8th September 2009, not one single identified alleged perpetrator nor any of the supportive expert witnesses have even been so much as questioned by the police.
The issue of possible misuse of public funds is not the only one that is being covered up at present, in relation to Angiolini`s action against me.
Her lawyer, Mr Fred Tyler, of Balfour & Manson, is still trying to avoid providing the complete provenance to which I am entitled in relation to private and confidential emails between me and two journalists that has been disclosed within Angiolini`s bundle in support of her action. I shall again be applying to the Court of Session under the Administration of Justice Act, should Mr Tyler continue to obstruct, to ensure provision of a specification of documents, including correspondence involving Levy & McRae, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Office and Balfour & Manson regarding exactly how these documents came into came into their possession, their authenticity, how the Crown Office actually obtained them, who authorised their use in a civil case, etc, as this is a case of concealing material from the Court in an attempt to deny me a fair trial.
I am still awaiting information on the racially discriminatory remarks made towards me by Sheriff Principal Bowen and perhaps even more disturbingly, who was responsible for deleting the words from the official court audio presented to Lady Smith.
On 5th June this year, I asked the Procurator Fiscal`s Office in Aberdeen why my personal property, including computer records, seized from my home by Grampian Police on 13th February 2010, had still not been returned to me. I received an assurance that the Office would immediately forward paperwork to authorise the police to release and return my possessions.
I am still waiting.
Remember, Bowen accused me of trying to undermine the integrity of the Scottish justice system. May I suggest that it is doing a very good job of this by itself without any help from me?
The eminent Jock Thomson QC, one of Scotland`s most respected lawyers, described the Crown Office of being “institutionally corrupt”. Who could doubt his words?
Readers of this blog will be aware of my attempts, with others, to try to discover who nominated Jimmy Savile for his knighthood in 1990. Savile`s disgraceful behaviour had been widely known since 1955. The Sun, to its credit, in an article by Tom Wells, has also been pressing for this information, which has been persistently obstructed by the Cabinet Office.
A possible reason for this obstructiveness has become more clear with the publication of this information:-http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5018091/Jimmy-Savile-report.html
Some of Lady Thatcher`s most senior aides had clearly been making every reasonable effort during the eighties to dissuade the then Prime Minister from offering her support for Savile to be honoured.
The disclosure of this new information poses yet another disquieting query.
If senior figures in positions of responsibility and influence during the eighties, had, to their credit, been warning about Savile in such a direct manner, how could it be that at Savile`s funeral in 2011, Prince Charles was publicly eulogising to the extent of stating that “No one will ever know what you did for this country”?
Had no leading official, over a period of 56 years, sought to inform the heir to the throne or any member of the Royal Family about Savile`s continuous disgusting and depraved conduct?
I have been asked if any progress has yet been made over my simple request to Police Scotland`s new Chief Constable Stephen House, also knighted, although recently, for his “services to law and order”.
Sir Stephen has been asked, as the senior police officer in a country with Europe`s lowest rate of conviction for rape, what his definition of a thorough investigation into rape allegations might be, especially in a case where the victim`s claims have the full support of eminent expert witnesses, including the police`s own forensic specialist and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
This perfectly straightforward question to an officer, awarded this great acknowledgement for services to law and order, seems to have baffled Sir Stephen to the extent that he cannot even think of an appropriate answer.
Thus, I have been in discussion with the Scottish Police Authority and now a formal complaint about Sir Stephen`s persistent refusal to answer such a question, that must surely be regarded reasonably as being in the public interest, has been lodged.
Would it be unfair by now to hold the suspicion that high level cover up of paedophile sexual abuse perpetrated by powerful individuals exists both north and south of the border?
As events unfold pointing to further efforts in Scotland to cover up the Hollie Greig case by absolutely any means, I should thank a number of MPs from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties for having the courage and integrity to write supportive messages about the outrageous way the issue has been dealt with by the Scottish authorities, including Alex Salmond`s SNP government.
This is, of course, a humanitarian issue in which there is no room for party politics, but I must also thank senior figures in UKIP, including Lord Monckton and Nigel Farage for their unwavering support. I would like to quote directly from a message received from Mr Farage`s office.
“Thank you for writing to Nigel Farage about this strange and highly suspicious case and for supporting Robert Green in his remarkable and principled stand. As you know, UKIP-Scotland endorsed Mr Green as candidate for an Aberdeen constituency in the General Election of 2010”.
Is it any wonder that Salmond`s bully-boy “brownshirts” were so desperate to silence Mr Farage on his recent visits to Scotland, including Aberdeen?
None of this however, would carry any weight with Sheriff Principal Bowen. There can surely be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that he was selected to oversee my trial, not to adjudicate fairly in line with his sworn obligations, but to convict and imprison me, regardless of the existing evidence supporting me.
Another example of this, following on from my last blog , was the statement about the evidence provided by those accused of abuse by Hollie. Bowen said of them that “only the most twisted minds would think for one moment that they were not telling the truth”. It would seem that it had not occurred to Bowen that those accused of serious sexual crimes almost always vehemently deny them when challenged – one needs to look no further than Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Cyril Smith and the murderer of little April Jones, Mark Bridger.
Furthermore, amongst those who had so convinced Bowen of their innocence was one individual who, as I pointed out during the trial, fell within the category of a probable abuser of Hollie as quoted by expert witness Dr Eva Harding, in a document already accepted by the state as worthy and reliable.
Yet another of this type of prosecution witness blatantly perjured himself when challenged by my QC, Mr Andy Lamb in relation to another expert witness document, that of Dr Paul Carter.
Of course, the trial would never have taken place had the police exercised its duty by questioning all of those named. Whether they would have been arrested, charged or convicted would not have been a matter for me to deal with in any way, but the police transparently failed, and in doing so have also failed those accused, if they really are innocent as they have claimed to be.
The most compelling defence witness at my trial would have been Hollie, but having witnessed her ordeals with giving evidence to Grampian Police and the subsequent cruel hounding of her and her mother Anne by Shropshire Council, I would never ever put her through the tribulation of appearing in court on my behalf.
Yesterday I was interviewed by Lady Smith in Edinburgh as part of the Judicial Office`s formal investigation into the racially offensive remark directed at me during the sentencing hearing by Sheriff Principal Bowen, which has since been deleted by a person or persons unknown in the audio submitted to the investigation. A further unexplained curiosity is that the latest transcript differs significantly in many ways from the original document sent to me by the Crown Office, although both omit the two crucial sentences.
Just how many bogus recordings can there be?
Of course, of Bowen`s sentencing recorded remarks that actually do appear to be accurate, these can be taken apart piece by piece. For the sake of brevity, today I shall focus on just one important aspect as it offers an insight into Bowen`s mentality and prejudice, not only against me, but against disabled rape victim Hollie Greig. I was able to bring up this point with Lady Smith.
Within the latest account are contained the words spoken by Bowen, with reference to those accused by Hollie, “but apart from highlighting the absurdity of the allegations“. Let us examine this statement carefully. These allegations were initially made by Hollie, accepted by all the experts as a truthful and competent witness, as told to DC Lisa Evans, in my presence, on 8th September 2009. The veracity of Hollie`s allegations had been fully supported by expert professional witnesses Dr Eva Harding, Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Paul Carter, Dr Frances Kelly, Detective Inspector Iain Alley and his fellow officers, Susannah Seymann and Ruth Beckmann of the Down`s Syndrome Association and specialist solicitor Nicola Smith of Enable. Not only that, but also the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority concluded that the weight of evidence was sufficient to confirm that crimes had been committed and led to a financial award to Hollie.
So Bowen, who has never met Hollie and has no known qualifications in medicine or specialist psychology, had decided unilaterally that these hitherto unchallenged opinions of respected and eminent experts on which I relied to support Hollie`s case, were “absurd”. I would put it that the adjective “absurd” would be more appropriate in describing Bowen`s highly biased and ill-researched opinion.
He went on, somewhat bizarrely given the circumstances, to state that the law is on the side of the innocent. Clearly the innocent, in Bowen`s eyes at least, do not include child or disabled victims of sexual crime.
Bowen had earlier been interviewed by Lady Smith in the course of the investigation and naturally, I cannot yet be a party to the content of that discussion. However, should it be that he has denied making that offensive remark against me that was heard in a crowded open court, then he will be lying in order to deceive those conducting the investigation.
It is that simple.
Finally, thank you for all the kind messages I received prior to my visit and especially to those who came to support me there. I am very grateful to you all. I should add my appreciation to those of you who were present in the court on that day who have offered sworn statements to confirm that Bowen had indeed made an offensive remark that betrayed his prejudice and bigotry.
SCOTTISH MAINSTREAM MEDIA -WHY ARE THEY SO FRIGHTENED?
Many times I have been asked how it can be that the Scottish media continually ignore one of country`s greatest scandals- the Hollie Greig case.
I do not know what the answer may be. One can only speculate. Even at the height of the Jimmy Savile exposure, no organ of the Scottish media would comment on or display pictures of Savile`s cottage in the Highlands having been prominently daubed “Justice for Hollie Greig”. Every effort is being made to keep the facts of the case out of sight of the people of Scotland. Why would that be?
There has been one exception to this lack of reporting. Just over a year ago, on Sunday 17th June 2012, an article appeared, written by David Leask, in the Herald Scotland. It turned out to be one of the most biased and cowardly pieces of journalism imaginable, clearly intending to mislead its readers into believing that the Hollie Greig case was some kind of hoax.
In the week leading up to the publication, I had been approached by David Leask. I ascertained that he had copies of all the expert witness statements supporting Hollie`s allegations, including those of Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Eva Harding and others, including that of D.I. Iain Alley and the reference to the police`s own forensic expert, Dr Frances Kelly. There could be no reasonable doubt that Hollie had been the victim of sexual abuse, a position supported by the CICA also. Leask`s article chose to largely ignore the content of such expert factual evidence and concentrate overwhelmingly on uncorroborated statements from a variety of so-called victims of the campaign and their supporters.
On Friday 15th June, Leask phoned me urgently requesting an interview with Anne Greig. I explained that Anne was subject to the terms of a severe injunction placed upon her and suggested that he place his questions to her in writing in order that she could obtain advice from her legal representatives, so that it could be decided how, or even whether, she should respond to questions put to her by a mainstream journalist.
Leask refused this perfectly reasonable proposition, saying he had a deadline to meet that midnight. The subsequent article indicated that a disproportionate amount of time must have been given to those who wished to try to discredit Hollie and Anne and that Anne was being given no lawful opportunity to defend herself and her daughter from the smears published against them. Hence my use of the word “cowardly”. It was a scandalous public attack on a disabled rape victim and her devoted mother.
What, you may well ask, was the name of Herald Scotland`s legal advisors who cleared the article for publication?
It was Levy & McRae, lawyers for Elish Angiolini and Alex Salmond.
As you may be aware, I shall be meeting Lady Smith to be interviewed over Sheriff Principal Bowen`s discriminatory remarks at the sentencing hearing and how it came about that official audio Court evidence presented to Lady Smith had been falsified. The meeting takes place at 4.15 pm on Wednesday 3rd July at Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh. Members of the public will not be allowed to be present at the interview, but if any of Hollie`s supporters happen to be in the area around that time, I should be delighted to see them.
SHERIFF PRINCIPAL BOWEN INVESTIGATION – LATEST
I have received a letter today form the Judicial Office of Scotland inviting me to be interviewed by Lady Smith at 4.15 pm on Wednesday 3rd July at Parliament House, Edinburgh.
This development is to be welcomed, as I offered at the outset the opportunity to discuss this issue with Lady Smith and to support my position with a sworn statement, if required. Many of those present at the hearing have offered their support also, as it was perfectly clear that Bowen made a most offensive and discriminatory remark to me during the course of the sentencing statement, following my challenge to him over his concealment of his ten-year relationship with Elish Angiolini during the course of the trial.
The integrity of the Scottish Court system is at stake here, without doubt, as a person or persons as yet unknown has falsified a audio record of solemn Court proceedings by deleting two key sentences uttered by Bowen which are unquestionably self-incriminating as far as his complete lack of impartiality is concerned.
Bowen should never have been appointed to adjudicate in the first place. Any sheriff in Scotland with no connection to a key cited witness could and should have taken the trial. The individual who appointed Bowen was Sir Stephen Young, a fellow business associate of both Bowen and Angiolini!
I have been asked about what progress, if any, has taken place since I presented my terms to assist in enabling Elish Angiolini to drop her civil action against me. Whilst it would be unfair to go into detail whilst negotiations are under way, it should be said that Elish Angiolini has claimed that I have been unjust in accusing her of covering up the Hollie Greig case. Her legal team have been presented with the full range of expert witness documents supporting Hollie`s allegations, as well as the evidence from the Commissioner that two of these vital expert medical documents of support were deliberately withheld from the prosecutor by Grampian Police whilst Hollie`s case was being considered. These documents were amongst those handed to Operation Yewtree when I was interviewed. The officers concerned could find no good reason for Grampian`s failure to even interview those named by Hollie on 8th September 2009 and held grave concerns about the likelihood of police corruption in respect of the withheld documents.
If Elish Angiolini thinks that I have been unfair to her, I have suggested that based on the sheer strength of the evidence, she should be given the opportunity of behaving honourably by calling publicly for a complete re-investigation into the Hollie Greig case.
Whilst Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini laid great public store on what she was going to do to help Scottish rape victims, given the country`s appallingly low conviction rate for this dreadful crime. Even after leaving office, she commented on this when interviewed by Jenni Murray on BBC Radio`s Woman`s Hour. At the very end of the programme, Elish Angiolini was asked how she would best like to be remembered during her tenure as Lord Advocate.
She replied that it would be for all that she had achieved for rape victims.
Elish Angiolini really did say that.
BOWEN TO BE QUESTIONED NEXT WEEK
Lady Smith is to question Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen next week during the investigation into his conduct towards me at the Sentencing Hearing on 17th February 2012. I am pleased that Lady Smith was able to force the authorities to finally hand over the audio that they had denied me for over a year, since I discovered that two key sentences were missing from the initial transcript. The reason for the Scottish authorities` persistent reluctance to provide me with this crucial evidence has become clear. The audio has been falsified, by a person or persons unknown, in a blatant attempt to pervert the course of an official investigation, by “fixing” the recording to omit the two sentences, as referred to in my last blog, which would have surely been regarded as severely compromising Bowen`s competence and solemn duty to treat me impartially.
If Bowen denies making the remarks to Lady Smith, then he will be lying – there can be no question whatsoever about that. Bowen has already displayed his lack of integrity by concealing from the Court and defence his ten year relationship with key cited defence witness Elish Angiolini. Surely, this constitutes a prima facie case of hiding a likely conflict of interest. It is highly likely that my exposing this matter in Court led to his vicious and unbalanced attack on me during his sentencing statement.
The Disciplinary Judge, who initially ordered the investigation into Bowen`s behaviour, is Lord Eassie. He has been informed of the attempt to deceive Lady Smith.
It has been patently obvious throughout the Hollie Greig case, which is really what all this is about, that the Scottish establishment, including the police, some members of the judiciary and Alex Salmond`s SNP government will stop at nothing to prevent the Scottish people from knowing about this case, including intimidation of the Scottish media. Mr Salmond and his colleagues, who claim to be Scottish patriots, are in fact too cowardly to even stand up for Scotland`s children and the disabled. Nothing, but nothing, will be allowed to occur that may expose those magic circle sexual predators who infest the country`s elite. Horrific suffering by the victims is of little importance to Alex Salmond. He does not want to upset his powerful friends. That comes first.
Mr Salmond is personally involved in the Hollie Greig case, although he has tried to deny it. We were able to identify a letter sent from his constituency office in 2007 about the case and on the 1st May 2011, I personally handed relevant documents to him in Perth. “I`ll take a look at them”, he told me.
Meanwhile, Chief Constable Stephen House, appointed as the highest ranking police officer in Scotland by Mr Salmond`s government, is still either unable or unwilling to define what he would regard constitutes a thorough investigation into rape allegations.
BOWEN AUDIO DOCTORED – LATEST ACT OF CORRUPTION
The Judicial Office for Scotland has informed me today that Lady Smith, who leads the investigation into Sheriff Principal Bowen`s conduct towards me, has at last secured the digital recording that has been withheld from me for a year. A detailed further transcript has been forwarded to me, that is supposed to reflect what is contained on the audio.
During the hearing, Bowen`s astonishing outburst, in open Court, went roughly like this:-
“How dare you, an Englishman, come to Scotland to tell us what to do?
We know how to run the justice system here in Scotland.”
Although the precise wording, which took everyone by surprise, may be slightly different, all of those I spoke to who had heard them had no doubt of a clear imputation of racial bigotry. Someone with that attitude, quite apart from the other various issues about Bowen`s conduct during my trial, could not possibly be said to be fit to judge me impartially.
These two sentences are missing from the digital recording. Person or persons as yet unknown have tampered with Court evidence in order to deceive anyone, such as Lady Smith, from conducting an accurate and impartial official investigation.
Even taking account all the shocking behaviour displayed by senior officials throughout the Hollie Greig case, this blatant and shameless example of corruption takes some beating. There seems to be nothing that the current Scottish legal establishment will not do in order to pervert the course of justice. Quite apart from this specific example, the human rights of defenceless individuals like Hollie count for nothing under this current vile regime under Alex Salmond.
Let us imagine for a moment being in the position of a neutral and dispassionate observer, having no knowledge of the background to the case, nor of its personalities.
Given that the hearing was being recorded and in front of a crowded courtroom, what possible motive could I have for making any allegation of this kind that was not true?
Bowen and his accomplices, whoever they may be, on the other hand, have every reason to lie and falsify evidence. The staggeringly corrupt Scottish political and legal hierarchy is well and truly on the line here and will undoubtedly use any dirty trick in the book to protect the status quo, which
has brought such misery and suffering to the likes of Hollie Greig.
The letter I received informs me that Lady Smith is to interview Sheriff Principal Bowen. If he denies making the type of remarks highlighted, then no “ifs” or “buts”, he will be lying to an official investigator. Bowen has already displayed his utter contempt for justice by concealing his ten-year relationship with Elish Angiolini, a cited defence witness who refused to appear, from the Court and defence whilst masquerading as acting impartially.
For my part, I have written to the Judicial Office for Scotland offering to meet Lady Smith and make a sworn statement about what really did occur at Stonehaven Court on 17th February 2012.
As with the Hillsborough, Lockerbie and Jimmy Savile cases, amongst others, the United Kingdom is fast becoming the land where high level corruption never ends.
SHERIFF PRINCIPAL EDWARD BOWEN TO BE INVESTIGATED
The above, who was solely responsible for my conviction and subsequent imprisonment, is to be investigated over his conduct towards me during the proceedings.
The Judicial Office for Scotland has formally confirmed thus:- “The Disciplinary Judge has decided that exceptional circumstances were shown in this case and your complaint should be considered”. The letter concludes by saying that the procedure and investigation will be a matter for the Nominated Judge.
Just to reiterate previous contents of this blog site, it was uncovered shortly after my conviction on 24th January 2012 that Sheriff Principal Bowen had concealed from the Court and the defence the existence of a ten-year association with key cited defence witness, Elish Angiolini. It is a matter of public record that Angiolini and Bowen resigned as colleagues from the same organisation within 24 hours of each other on the 5th and 6th May 2011 respectively. Angiolini, of course, declined to face cross-examination at my trial and Bowen, in accepting her refusal, allowed her to evade a court appearance and in doing so, served to have a negative effect on my prospects for a successful defence.
It must be reasonable, therefore, to suggest that Sheriff Principal Bowen was wrong in deliberately refusing to disclose this relationship, which may well be regarded in having a potential conflict of interest.
At the outset of the sentencing hearing on 17th February 2012, I publicly challenged Bowen over this issue that had come to my notice, but he refused to recuse himself. It became transparently clear by his demeanour that he had regarded my intervention as most unwelcome and in short order, proceeded to attack me in a matter that was at odds with even any pretence of impartiality, including directing a racially abusive remark at me.
Significantly, when I received a copy of the transcript of his remarks, this offensive item was omitted, the only comment to be missing from the document. The Crown Office and Scottish Courts have persisted to this day in refusing to state who was responsible for falsifying an official court document and to provide a copy of the audio, which would have established beyond doubt exactly what Bowen had said.
The overall content of the rest of Bowen`s remarks was both inaccurate and partial to a disturbing degree. Any independently minded observer would have surely reached the conclusion that Bowen`s only intention had been to convict and incarcerate me, with absolutely no regard to the strength of the expert evidence supporting Hollie Greig`s allegations and my stance based on that unchallenged documentation. In fact, Bowen thoroughly disregarded the extensive professional evidence placed before him by suggesting that those prosecution witnesses identified by Hollie should be believed unconditionally, even when one of them blatantly perjured himself before the Sheriff Principal.
It constituted an utter travesty of justice.
Readers will be aware that I continue to be a great admirer both of Scotland and the overwhelming majority of its people. In all the many visits to Scotland I have made over the years, including the enforced period in Aberdeen Jail, not one other Scot has ever been racially abusive towards me, even in the mildest way. That it was a senior member of the judiciary who behaved in this disgraceful and reprehensible manner must again highlight persistent questions about the character and calibre of some of the individuals in Scotland who attain high office and whose solemn duty it is to administer and dispense justice with impartiality.
CHIEF CONSTABLE STEPHEN HOUSE – STILL NO RESPONSE.
With reference to the previous blog, Scotland`s most senior police officer has yet to define what he regards constitutes a thorough investigation into rape.
I have approached the three main opposition leaders to request that they pursue this issue in the public interest, given that Scotland has the lowest conviction rate for rape crime in the whole of Europe. The leaders are Ruth Davidson (Conservative), Ms Johann Lamont (Labour) and Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat). I have not contacted the SNP, as its current priority would appear to defend Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill`s reputation at all costs, rather than protect Scottish children and the disabled from rape.
In the wake of the dreadful murder of brave young soldier Lee Rigby, I heard Home Secretary Theresa May say that further steps would be undertaken to protect the public not only from vicious terrorism of this kind, but also from paedophiles. I found reference to the latter somewhat odd, as it seems obvious that the role of senior police officers, prominent politicians and the intelligence services has been to protect eminent and influential paedophiles from exposure and prosecution for many years now. How else could it be said of Jimmy Savile, at his funeral in 2011, by the Heir to the Throne, no less, that “No one will ever know what Jimmy Savile has done for the country” (see Daily Star)?
At the time of his death, Savile had been widely known to have been indulging in his vile perversions for 56 years!
Why wasn`t Prince Charles told to have nothing to do with this monster?
Why was Savile knighted in 1990?
Why was Cyril Smith also knighted in 1988, when it had been established that he had been committing sex crimes against children over the previous 23 years?
Have senior politicians and leading members of the establishment been granting de facto immunity to such eminent paedophiles from being arrested and prosecuted for sex crimes?
Perhaps Theresa May has at last realised that when it comes to the type of terrorism that is directed against children, the disabled and women, the intelligence services are at best hopeless or at worst, complicit. Let us hope that the Home Secretary has belatedly come to realise that protection of our most vulnerable citizens must now become a national priority.
Finally, among the still lengthening list of celebrities (though not senior public officials) facing sex charges, is Max Clifford. Now I have absolutely no idea whether Mr Clifford is guilty or innocent of the charges laid against him. What I do know is that when I approached Mr Clifford three years ago to assist in publicising the Hollie Greig case, I was told that “it was too hot for him to handle”!
CHIEF CONSTABLE STEPHEN HOUSE – WHAT CONSTITUTES A “THOROUGH INVESTIGATION” INTO RAPE ALLEGATIONS?
In April, Chief Constable Stephen House became the head of Scotland`s newly unified police force. With Scotland having the lowest conviction rate for rape in Europe and my experience of the police`s handling of the Hollie Greig case, I thought it both reasonable and in the public interest to ask him what police actions into rape allegations would constitute the minimum level in order to satisfy him that a thorough investigation had taken place.
Every single police officer that I have spoken to on this issue, both informally or formally, as in the Operation Yewtree investigation, has stated that at the very least, identified alleged attackers must be questioned. No such action has taken place following Hollie Greig`s complaint to DC Lisa Jane Evans on 8th September 2009, at which I was present. This most fundamental lack of investigation was confirmed on oath by DC Evans at my trial. Furthermore, fourteen of those identified by Hollie were also cross-examined in court and all confirmed that the police had never even questioned them about Hollie`s claims.
It should be repeated again that Hollie has been described by professionals as a competent and truthful witness with her allegations being supported by a plethora of expert witness evidence, including police officers themselves and the police`s own forensic medical advisor, plus a financial award to Hollie by the state based on the acceptance that the crime of rape had indeed taken place.
To date, Chief Constable House has felt either unwilling or incapable of responding to this perfectly straightforward question. Could it be that if he were to provide an answer consistent with that of his fellow officers, it might severely embarrass his boss, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has regurgitated the nonsensical mantra that “a thorough investigation into the Hollie Greig case has taken place” when it must be clear to everyone that nothing of the kind has ever transpired?
Astonishing though it may seem, the Justice Secretary once actually stated publicly that “rape is a horrific crime and we must all do our best to prevent it” – really, Mr MacAskill?
Chief Constable House`s attitude towards rape allegations must thus be of importance to every woman, child or disabled person in Scotland – why won`t he address the issue?
He can be contacted on 01786 289070 or email@example.com
ANGIOLINI `S FORMER DEPUTY ADMITS TO DOWNLOADING 15,000 CHILD PORN IMAGEShttp://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2013/shame-for-crown-office-lord-advocate-as.html
If you have difficulty accessing this, it is reported in the Scottish Law Reporter, the Scottish Daily Mail and the BBC. The current Scottish regime is notoriously hostile to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, especially with regard to issues related to paedophile crime.
Stuart MacFarlane, who formerly served as Procurator Fiscal Depute under Elish Angiolini, when she was Lord Advocate, has confessed to possessing 15,000 pornographic images of girls between 3 and 14 as well as ones including sadism and sex with animals.
Additionally, it is understood that several other members at Angiolini`s former office have been suspended on the grounds of suspicion that they shared the images with MacFarlane.
MacFarlane was initially arrested for a past sex offence in 2005, but the Crown Office decided it was “not in the public interest” to prosecute him. It has now turned out that he has been, in fact, a serial paedophile criminal all along.
The initial offence was being caught in a sexual act with a female prostitute in Glasgow. Two police officers, Sgt Stewart and PC McCormack gave chase to MacFarlane, who ran away with his trousers around his ankles and both officers were injured as MacFarlane attempted to evade arrest. One might reasonably have expected a custodial sentence, but this was not to be, thanks to the intervention of Angiolini`s office, “in the public interest”, naturally.
MacFarlane was assisted further by the services of the late Paul McBride QC.
Readers of this blog may recall that it was Mr McBride who helped sex offender Douglas Haggarty, current Technical Head of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, to avoid prison after he was arrested for committing a sexual act with a boy in the gents` toilets in a Glasgow city centre store.
Such is the calibre of some of the individuals in positions of responsibility within the Scottish justice system. You could hardly make it up.
Paul McBride was somewhat mysteriously found dead in a hotel room in Pakistan last year, aged just 48.
It is now almost a year since I was released from jail. I still remember with appreciation the support I received from the officers and governors there and especially, the tremendous backing that was given to me by my fellow prisoners throughout the incarceration. It is also impossible for me to forget all the kindnesses and messages I received from so many people around the world, shocked by the Scottish authorities` contemptuous and hostile attitude towards disabled rape victim Hollie Greig and those who had the decency and courage to stand up for her.
I must also thank those wonderful people who publicly called for my release in various cities and the valiant Scots who walked the streets of Aberdeen and demonstrated on a number of occasions outside the prison. These are the true Scots, a credit to their fine country.
Scotland really is a wonderful nation, containing some of the most decent, brave and talented people you could find anywhere, but every country does have its unsavoury element and it seems that this small and unworthy minority has somehow reached the upper echelons of the Scottish system. Returning to my earlier comments, I have no hesitation in stating my view that in general, the Scots locked up with me in prison were of superior character than many of those who actually run the country.
Since I left prison, of course, the Jimmy Savile and Hillsborough scandals have unravelled and people throughout Britain must be aware of the desperate and cynical measures adopted by the authorities to cover up criminal activity when it suits them to do so, including persecution of the victims themselves. Scotland is not alone in being riddled with corruption at a very high level.
ANGIOLINI – CAN SHE BE DEFAMED?
This is a fundamental question with regard to Elish Angiolini`s defamation action against me. The view may be held that her record in public office renders her to be one of those rare individuals who cannot actually be defamed. Because I do not wish to appear partial, I shall list only evidence that has no connection with Angiolini`s conduct in relation to the Hollie Greig case.
In May 2001, whilst Elish Angiolini was Procurator Fiscal in Aberdeen, a 22-year-old man who confessed to raping a 10-year-old girl walked free due to a blunder on Angiolini`s part that she was later obliged to admit. She claimed that this monumental error had occurred due to her office being short-staffed. Oddly, such a debacle in allowing a man known to be dangerous to children to be let loose did nothing to impede Angiolini`s meteoric career rise. In short order, she became Scotland`s Solicitor-General!
This case was reported on by Tara Womersley of the Telegraph, among others.
After Angiolini was promoted yet again to the highest office in the Scottish justice system, that of Lord Advocate, she faced further criticism from some of Scotland`s most respected legal professionals.
Ian Hamilton QC, Scotland`s legal elder statesman, commented that “Elish Angiolini was a bad Lord Advocate who should have been sacked by Alex Salmond when he took office in 2007”. Mr Hamilton went on to criticise Angiolini`s highly controversial admission to be an advocate at Terra Firma soon after her resignation as Lord Advocate, in these words, “This lady has been publicly censured by the Lord Justice General. No one who has been so censured has ever passed advocate in the last three hundred years”.
The Lord Justice General`s public reprimand came as a result of Angiolini`s intervention in the World`s End case (see HeraldScotland 27 September 2007).
Next, Lord Hope, a Scottish representative at the Supreme Court, severely rebuked Angiolini and others over the Peter Cadder case. Angiolini thought that people arrested and charged by the police should not be allowed professional legal representation. The Supreme Court ruled that Angiolini and others were in fact acting in breach of Scotland`s solemn commitment to the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. I too suffered from this breach when I was arrested and charged, but the Hollie Greig issue had nothing to do with this. I was by no means alone. An estimated 76,000 people in Scotland were also denied their lawful rights over this matter.
Professor Robert Black QC then described Angiolini`s tenure as Lord Advocate as “a disastrous experiment that should never be repeated”. Professor Black is involved, along with many other eminent people around the world, in the examination of issues related to the Lockerbie case, about which Elish Angiolini, in 2009, has already made false public statements over reasons for the release of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.
One might well think it reasonable to conclude that such powerful public criticisms of Angiolini by prominent legal figures in Scotland would have damaged her reputation far more than any words than I could possibly ever utter, but curiously, she has taken no similar action of defamation against any of these widely-respected legal luminaries.
Finally, since my court appearance in Edinburgh, I have again raised the issue of the private and confidential emails that have been used in evidence against me in this civil case. We now know from Angiolini`s Counsel, Mr Roddy Dunlop, that these documents were acquired from Grampian Police in connection with the criminal case against me. Furthermore, Mr Dunlop entered the court unaware that his client had refused my offer to speak openly at my trial when I had her cited as a witness to face cross-examination, in an effort to discover the truth over her involvement in the Hollie Greig case.
So far, her solicitor, Mr Alfred Tyler, of Balfour & Manson, has not disclosed as to how Mr Dunlop came to be so ill-informed, nor has he yet complied with my request for complete provenance to be provided to me in regard to the identified emails that I have referred to.
ANGIOLINI – REPORT FROM EDINBURGH
Having been forced, at short notice, to represent myself in Court on Wednesday 1st May, it did provide me with the opportunity to bring some serious issues into open court. It must be said at the outset that I was treated with utmost fairness and consideration by the judge, Lord Stewart, qualities that are not always evident within certain members of the Scottish judiciary. It is also the case that Balfour & Manson`s Advocate, Mr Dunlop, behaved in a courteous and correct manner towards me.
On equitable grounds, Lord Stewart accepted the need for me to be provided with a level of professional expertise adequate for my defence, especially as I am currently acting alone in a foreign land whose laws I do not know, nor have I any legal obligation to possess such knowledge.
I asked Lord Stewart to direct the pursuer`s Counsel to disclose how certain items within the pursuer`s bundle presented to the defence had been obtained, i.e. private and confidential emails. Mr Dunlop said that these had been obtained from police records in connection with the public criminal case against me. I do not recall seeing these documents until they were recently presented to me, but that does not necessarily invalidate what Mr Dunlop had to say in regard to this private civil case. He did not go on to explain, however, precisely how or when they had been obtained, from whom and by who`s authority they had been provided to Elish Angiolini or her representatives.
I went on to disclose a letter, dated 16th April 2013, sent by me to the current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, asking him to provide to the Court of Session an assurance that public funds had not been accessed by the pursuer for the purpose of this private case, that could result in her personal financial gain. This query was stimulated by press reports that a secret “slush fund” of public money had been created for the use of senior Crown Office officials, past and present, in order for them to utilise in private legal actions for potential personal financial gain. The Crown Office has not yet clarified its position over these allegations, to my knowledge.
In this specific case, the Lord Advocate has failed to provide the requested assurance to the Court.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has been notified accordingly.
Returning to the matter of professional representation, for which I would require Legal Aid, I mentioned that the prospect of my receiving such aid could reasonably be said to be diminished by the fact that the Technical Head of the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), Douglas Haggarty, is himself a recent sex offender. This led me to suggest that a possible conflict of interest may exist within SLAB, as Mr Haggarty is likely to be more sympathetic to fellow sex offenders than to someone like me, who seeks to expose such criminal activities.
Lord Stewart was unaware of this particular case, which was widely publicised in Scotland, so I explained that in 2009, Mr Haggarty had been apprehended and charged after being found indulging in a sex act with a boy in the gents` toilets at British Home Stores, St Enoch Square, Glasgow on a busy Saturday afternoon, when families were in the vicinity.
After the hearing, I was astounded to learn that Angiolini`s Counsel had come to Court in order to represent her in complete ignorance that she had been cited by my Counsel at my trial to appear for cross-examination under oath and that she had subsequently refused to face the Court. Regardless of the merits of my allegations, I had always held that it was thus entirely unreasonable of Angiolini to take out a defamation action against me when I had previously provided her with the perfect opportunity to answer such allegations in open court. Had it been established by her evidence then that I had been inaccurate or mistaken in any regard, I would have offered a retraction and suitable public apology. In declining my offer, Elish Angiolini had denied me the opportunity of doing so, if appropriate. Mr Fred Tyler, senior partner of Balfour & Manson, has so far refused to offer an explanation as to how Counsel could have come to represent Angiolini and yet be unaware of crucial true facts.
Lord Stewart has suggested that it would be helpful for the two sides to come to an agreement and I stated that I have no objection in trying to cooperate in this regard. Mr Dunlop has made it clear that Elish Angiolini has no wish to carry on pursuing the case if such an agreement can be arrived at. I shall formulate my terms for her consideration shortly, but justice will need to be pursued and seen to be pursued in the case of Hollie Greig. Surely, Elish Angiolini would agree with me that the interests of a disabled Scottish rape victim should take precedence over those relevant to her reputation or indeed, to my freedom.
Irrespective of whether an acceptable agreement can be negotiated or not, no further hearing will take place until the autumn.
THANK YOU ALL AGAIN!
This is just a very brief message to all the kind people who have sent their best wishes and support for me today in Edinburgh , where I was forced to represent myself in court.
I am so grateful in particular to all those of you who came from many parts of Scotland and especially to Belinda, who travelled from London.
It must be said that I was pleased with the prospect of some constructive progress at last and the sheriff, Lord Stewart, treated me with courtesy and fair consideration, not always the case with the Scottish judiciary. I was pleasantly surprised at the change in attitude today, although there is still much to be considered yet. Whatever the outcome, there will be no more hearings for several months now and the sheriff agreed that I must be afforded professional legal representation in order for any important decisions to be made.
Let us hope that we can successfully continue in our quest for justice for Hollie and for the level of state protection for Scottish children and the disabled to which they are entitled.
Thank you all again for all your continuing kindness towards me and especially, for Hollie.
TOO HOT TO HANDLE?
The next hearing over Angiolini`s action against me is set to take place again at the Court of Session, Parliament Square, Edinburgh at 10.00 hrs on Wednesday 1st May. If anyone is able to come along to support me, I would be most grateful.
On this occasion, I am forced to represent myself as no Legal Aid is likely to be provided for me to be professionally represented. It seems that now Angiolini has amended her citation to include defamation, it appears that defence is more difficult, on the basis that someone as eminent as Elish Angiolini is simply too important to be criticised, unless you can actually prove your allegations.
That this state of affairs actually exists in Britain may come as a complete surprise to anyone who does not live under a totalitarian regime. In the rest of the UK, ex-Prime Ministers such as Tony Blair and Baroness Thatcher have been condemned in the most vitriolic way many times over the years, but as far as I know, no one has actually been jailed for these verbal attacks, however severe or unfair. I suppose one has to concede that Elish Angiolini is far more important that either of them. One only has to be thought to have claimed that she is unsuitable for a specific job to find oneself snatched from home and thrown into prison. As far as Scotland is concerned, the famous East German film “The Lives Of Others” is now “The Lives of Us”!
The timidity of the Scottish media has always baffled those who live outside the country. Now I think we know why. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression no longer exist there. The all-powerful Scottish magic circle holds both media and people in its iron grip. So Scottish children and the disabled get raped – who dares to say or do anything about it?
Not the media, with some honourable exceptions and certainly not the police. The latter seem to largely exist to ensure magic circle criminals are never arrested. That is not to say that Scottish police are not competent when dealing, for example, with drunks fighting in a Glasgow bar, but when it comes to vulnerable Scots being sexually abused, the police are more likely to support the perpetrators.
It is a shocking state of affairs and I do not think that what I have said is too much of an exaggeration.
Going back to my case, of course, I shall be hopelessly disadvantaged by having to represent myself in a civil case in a foreign land, in legal terms, where I not only have no knowledge of Scottish Civil Law, but also as a non-Scot and non-resident have absolutely no legal obligation to know it. On the other hand, my opponent is a QC and former head of the justice system, using two of Scotland`s most expensive law firms, Balfour & Manson and Levy & McRae. One is clearly not enough for someone as eminent as Angiolini. Nonetheless, last week I asked the current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland , to provide the court with an assurance that no public funds are being utilised for Angiolini`s private action, following press reports that a secret “slush fund” is thought to exist to enable senior Crown Office officials, past as well as present, to access public money for personal financial gain. The current head of the justice system has so far failed to provide this assurance for the court.
Also, certain items have been discovered this week within the bundle presented by Balfour & Manson. These are private and confidential emails between me and colleagues that could only realistically have been obtained unlawfully. Appropriate action is already under way to discover how these items could have possibly got into Angiolini`s lawyer`s hands. They have some explaining to do.
Of course, Angiolini is saying that I have made all kinds of inaccurate allegations to defame her. It is most outrageous that she now intends to sue me, as I provided her with every opportunity to address these concerns she claims to have by citing her as a witness at my trial. There, she would have been given every chance to defend herself, on oath , during cross-examination. If her sworn testimony held that I had been mistaken in any way, I would have made a public retraction and apology. She failed to allow me that opportunity by refusing to be questioned in a court of law. Why she refused to attend must be a matter for speculation, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that she did not wish to be faced with a situation where she had to choose between the truth and perjury. What kind of person with nothing to hide would avoid the chance to put the record straight in a public court?
I do not pretend to imagine whether someone with the apparent status of a high priestess would actually deign to attend the hearing on Wednesday. Nobody seems to know.
LOCKERBIE – POLICE TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINALITY AT THE SCOTTISH CROWN OFFICE
The announcement of an investigation of this kind will probably come as no surprise to many people who have had any appreciable contact with the Crown Office in Edinburgh and certainly as no surprise at all to those who have followed the Hollie Greig case.
It is already perfectly clear, based on the evidence now available, that senior figures in the justice system have blatantly and publicly lied about certain crucial aspects of the Lockerbie case and the reasons given for the release of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.
Although this terrible crime could hardly be further removed from the crimes committed against Hollie Greig, some of the same individuals in Scotland are involved in both of the cover ups, which required the imprisoning of innocent people.
Protests against the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi have come from a numerous and wide variety of eminent and respected persons, including Dr Jim Swire, Professor Noam Chomsky, Professor Robert Black QC, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Kate Adie. Additionally, in general terms, the Crown Office has been publicly described as “institutionally corrupt” by distinguished counsel Jock Thomson QC.
In 2009, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and the then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini both made public statements relating to the release of Mr Al-Megrahi that were later shown to be entirely false. What is more, both senior officials must have known at the time that the CIA had bribed key prosecution witness Tony Gauci to the tune of $2 million in order to help secure Mr Al-Megrahi`s conviction. Clearly, in those circumstances, Gauci`s evidence could on no account be regarded as being reliable. In short, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the CIA`s action in paying this witness indicated that it did not wish the identity or identities of the real culprit(s) to be discovered.
Knowledge of this information did not prevent Elish Angiolini, in September 2009, from “deploring” Mr Al-Megrahi`s plan to appeal against his conviction. What could possibly be described as deplorable the desire of a man, seriously ill and imprisoned a long way from his own country and family, to lodge an appeal against a conviction that was already known to be transparently unsound?
On Wednesday, 1st May, at the Court of Session in Parliament Square, Edinburgh, at 10.00 hrs, a further hearing is due to take place over my challenge against Elish Angiolini`s civil action to effectively silence me over salient aspects of Hollie`s case.
I was so grateful to all the supporters of the Hollie Greig case for attending the previous hearing on 6th March and filling the Court. Their decency, compassion and courage is appreciated and the many messages received from those who could not be there was also a source for gratitude. If it is not too much to ask, I would be most thankful for any similar displays of support on 1st May.
It is not yet known whether Elish Angiolini will actually decide to make her first appearance on this occasion. It should not be forgotten that many of the allegations she has made against me could have been resolved, had she not refused to face cross-examination at my trial when cited as a defence witness to do so. Surely, it may be argued that if Elish Angiolini had nothing to conceal, one might have expected her to take up the opportunity I offered her to speak publicly about the issues raised, on Oath.
HOLLIE GREIG COVER UP – THE ENGLISH COLLABORATORS
The Scottish authorities have been frequently heavily criticised on this blog as they are chiefly responsible for the outrageous betrayal of Hollie and other sexual abuse victims, past, present or future, in Scotland. It should not, however, be overlooked that there are a number of English collaborators who hold a place of shame in this ongoing scandal. Scotland does not deserve all the blame.
One of these is Carol Boys, CEO of the Down`s Syndrome Association. Like Esther Rantzen of Childline, who was happy to share one of Jimmy Savile`s moments of glory, whilst knowing all the time of his reputation of being a foul abuser of children. Moreover, Esther Rantzen refused to lift a finger to help Hollie when I approached her.
When I was first asked to help Hollie, one of my initial ports of call was naturally the Down`s Syndrome Association, who had supported Hollie`s claims totally, even to the extent of providing documents written by Ruth Beckmann and Susannah Seymann to that effect. Susannah, in particular, backed Hollie most loyally, assisted by John Smithies, the association`s press officer. Both Susannah and John told me that they were well aware that Down`s Syndrome children were being subjected to sexual abuse on a considerable scale, especially in Scotland, which is why the DSA was keen to support my efforts on behalf of Hollie. I kept the two officials informed of the steps I was taking and told them that Hollie had been interviewed again at length by Grampian Police on 8th September 2009, in my presence.
Near the end of October 2009, whilst the police investigation was supposedly under way, I received a call from John Smithies, who told me that he had been summoned to a meeting with Carol Boys.to discuss the possible risk to the DSA if it continued to support Hollie.He asked if any legal threats had been made to me. At that time, I had received none at all.
When I next spoke to John a few days later, he told me that Carol Boys had dismissed him. He went on to say that whilst he had been advised not to communicate with me, he suggested that I ring Susannah Seymann, as he told me “She knows everything”. Unfortunately, Susannah, a very nice lady, would no longer speak to me and neither would Carol Boys. It would therefore be reasonable to suspect that Carol Boys had been “got at”, although by whom remains a mystery. A good man has lost his job and the interests of Hollie and others with Down`s Syndrome who may be at risk have thus been betrayed by the very organisation that is supposed to stand up for them.
I have no doubt that the DSA continues to do a lot of good work, but the issue I have referred to remains there to be addressed.
The phone number of the Down`s Syndrome Association is 0333 1212300 and its email, firstname.lastname@example.org
Then we come to Conservative-controlled Shropshire Council.
On 3rd June 2010, at around 13.30hrs, I was called by DC Ed Bates of West Mercia Police, responding to a request from Shropshire Council Social Services Department. Although Hollie was not nor had ever been under the care of the council, he told me that Social Services was “worried about Hollie and Anne`s safety”. DC Bates asked if I knew where they were. I could not understand the basis for this concern as Anne had told me a few days earlier that she and Hollie proposed to take a short holiday although I did not know where, This proved to have been the case.
My assurance, subsequently entirely justified, did not prevent, just 90 minutes after the call, Shropshire Council staff and police officers, accompanied by a dog, breaking into and vandalising Hollie and Anne`s home. The team remained for several hours in the small bungalow, taking with them Anne`s computer and documents. It hardly needs saying how much alarm and distress this cruel and unjustified intrusion caused Hollie and Anne, following all the suffering they had faced in Scotland.
Knowing the background, what kind of people could stoop to doing such a thing.
A considerable number of MPs, from all parties and in various areas of the country, have now either spoken up for or shown interest in Hollie`s case and full support has been received from Nigel Farage and UKIP, who even withdrew its candidate to help with my election campaign for Hollie at Aberdeen South in 2010. It would, however, be particularly appreciated if Conservative Cabinet Minister, Owen Paterson, Hollie`s MP, could somehow find the courage to stand up for her too.
His numbers are 0207 219 5185 or 01978 710073. The email is email@example.com
PERSECUTION OF THE RUSTIGE FAMILY IN ENGLAND BY CORRUPT SCOTTISH POLICE CONTINUES UNABATED
Following the outrageous snatching from his home and subsequent imprisonment mentioned in my last blog, the Scottish Police lost no time in coming back over the border to threaten Tim Rustige`s son and wife.
Rusty`s son was actually taken from his place of work in the Manchester area and held for around seven hours. Today, the same police questioned Rusty`s wife, despite her being in ill-health. It is sadistic, it is barbaric and we cannot allow such behaviour to continue against English residents by a foreign police force backed by a regime with a lamentable human rights record (see Peter Cadder, Supreme Court Ruling, 76,000 unsound criminal convictions). So the publicly funded intimidation of gallant and respected human rights activists continues. It reminded me of the answer I received from the police when I was first arrested in Scotland and asked for a legal representative to be present. When I challenged the officer who refused this request, in flagrant breach of human rights legislation, I was firmly told “This is Scotland!” Quite.
The police who are now harrassing the Rustiges is the same force that has consistently refused to question, in its home city of Aberdeen, even one of the 29 individuals, alleged abusers or fellow victims, identified by Hollie Greig to Grampian Police in my presence on 8th September 2009. Yet it has no compunction in repeatedly crossing the border to arrest, imprison and intimidate people like the Rustiges and me whose principal objective is to protect Scottish children and the disabled from rape, as Scottish people can no longer expect its police to protect them from such vile crimes.
Just what are the Scottish authorities so afraid of in allowing its police to consistently behave in this unacceptable manner?
The police who harrass the Rustiges is also the same force that deliberately withheld crucial documents, those of Dr Jack Boyle and Dr Eva Harding, that totally supported Hollie`s allegations, from the Prosecutor. This fact is made clear in the PCCS report. A more blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice could scarcely be imagined, yet have the officers responsible been arrested and charged?
Of course not, this is Scotland.
In the meantime, Rusty and his family deserve all the support that we can give them in order that they are adequately protected. The family`s MP is Graham Brady, email firstname.lastname@example.org and the Westminster phone number is 0207 219 1260 and constituency office 0161 904 8828.
The London office has informed me that it has been overwhelmed with calls from those who offer support for Rusty and for Hollie Greig. Nonetheless, a public statement from Mr Brady on behalf of his persecuted and innocent constituents would go a long way to assure English residents that they are being protected against outsiders. In case there remains any doubt, the headline from the Scottish Daily Express this week is unequivocal – “Scotland is now a Police State”.
New Scottish Police Chief Stephen House has a great deal to do in order to clean up police corruption and to reassure the people of Aberdeen in particular that he will fully undertake his public duty in protecting victims of paedophile rape in that city.
THE OUTRAGEOUS ABDUCTION OF TIMOTHY RUSTIGE
Many readers were either in court in Aberdeen to support Rusty on Wednesday or kindly sent messages backing him.
On Friday morning, Grampian Officers returned to the Manchester area to seize Rusty and take him back to a police cell in Aberdeen. Initial reports indicate that his home was once again violated and his son and wife threatened – and it all began because the same police force refused to even question those named by Hollie Greig has having sexually abused her.
It is disgusting and shocking, almost beyond belief, that such an action, which most of us would associate with Nazi Germany or Stalin`s Soviet Union, could ever take place in the United Kingdom, but it has.
I have informed Rusty`s MP, Graham Brady and the Police Commissioner for Manchester, Mr Tony Lloyd for help.
It is difficult to comprehend how officers from Operation Yewtree can be prevented from intervening in Scotland on the basis of a ludicrously inaccurate statement by its Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, relating to some of the gravest sexual offences imaginable, yet Scottish Police can come over the border, seize Rusty and me, in our efforts to protect Scottish children and the disabled and violate our homes with the full collaboration and cooperation of English police forces.
What is going on?
May I ask everyone who believes in decency and human rights to come to the aid of Rusty.
During a speech on Wednesday, I demanded the resignation of the Scottish Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, for making a knowingly false statement, i.e. “a thorough investigation has already been made into the Hollie Greig case”. That is complete nonsense, as we now know from sworn evidence at my trial that not one of the 29 alleged perpetrators and fellow victims has even been questioned by Grampian Police. The PCCS report has already confirmed that Grampian Police withheld two key documents supporting Hollie`s claims from the Procurator Fiscal in a blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Vulnerable British citizens remain at risk in Scotland and it is time that the British government stepped in to protect them, quite apart from the disgraceful way Rusty and I have been treated.
The Scottish people have been invited to vote on the question of independence on 18th September 2014. Of course, this an entirely honourable way of going about such matters and should be a matter for the Scottish people to resolve. However, whilst Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill lead the SNP, it is not just a matter of deciding whether to remain in the United Kingdom or going it alone, as it ought to be. It is over remaining in the Union or the prospect of being governed by Europe`s first paedo-fascist state. Alex Salmond has gone overboard in his attempts to instigate repressive media laws, whilst Kenny MacAskill continues to support, in effect, police corruption and the rapists of Scottish children and the disabled. If the mainstream Scottish media were to accurately report the facts about the Hollie Greig case, I am sure that the good people of Scotland would have Salmond and MacAskill out of office in short order and a sensible debate about independence could then take place.
It would be helpful if Mr MacAskill could be challenged over his statement about Hollie Greig in the Scottish Parliament.
The details of the three main opposition leaders are as email@example.com (Lib Dem)firstname.lastname@example.org (Labour- this is a lady, by the way)email@example.com (Conservative)
Meanwhile, let us do all we can to help the courageous Rusty and his family.
THE LIES OF KENNY MACASKILL
Before moving on to this subject, may I first thank everyone for the truly amazing response to my last blog, calling for support for Rusty (Timothy Rustige), who faces a Hearing in Aberdeen on Wednesday morning. Prisoners of Conscience International do a wonderful job and Rusty is a fearless campaigner against injustice. He is thus exactly the type of person the current vile Scottish SNP regime would want to crush.
Kenny MacAskill is Scotland`s Justice Secretary. Therefore, he holds a position of great responsibility and trust in administering justice in Scotland.
In 2009, Mr MacAskill lied about the reason for the release of the convicted and so-called Lockerbie bomber, Mr Al-Megrahi. At the time, the Justice Secretary already knew that evidence had been uncovered that indicated that Mr Al-Megrahi should never have been convicted in the first place. Even prosecuting judge Lord Fraser of Carmyllie had conceded that the conviction was unsound.
None of this has prevented Mr MacAskill from being prepared to lie and to lie before the whole world.
He has also stated that a thorough police investigation into the Hollie Greig case has taken place. At my trial a year ago, it was established beyond reasonable doubt that no such investigation had ever occurred.
Under cross-examination by Defence Counsel Andy Lamb QC, Grampian Police`s DC Lisa Jane Evans answered that none of the people identified by Hollie Greig in her formal complaint had ever been questioned by the police. Moreover, fourteen of the individuals named by Hollie called by the prosecution were also each asked by Mr Lamb if they had ever been questioned by the police in respect of the allegations made against them by Hollie Greig. They all swore that they had not.
I have ascertained that Mr MacAskill has been informed of this and has been presented with copies of all the expert witness statements supporting Hollie`s claims, along with the Police Complaints Commission Scotland document confirming that Grampian Police had withheld such expert witness statements from the Prosecutor.
Officers from Operation Yewtree have recently contacted the Scottish authorities over concerns about the Hollie Greig case. They have also been provided with the blatant untruth that “a thorough police investigation has taken place”, based on the aforesaid false and misleading statement made by Kenny MacAskill.
Meanwhile, justice is denied and Scottish children and the disabled in the Aberdeen area remain at risk.
Returning to the Lockerbie case, at least it can be safely assumed that in 2009, the Justice Secretary, along with Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini and First Minister Alex Salmond,would have been placed under extreme external pressure to lie about Mr Al-Megrahi, as to tell the truth would have meant exposing the cynicism and duplicity of American foreign policy during the eighties.
What pressure, then, may have been placed upon Mr MacAskill to lie so transparently over the Hollie Greig case?
The Prime Minister has authorised action in order to protect civilians in such countries as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Mali.
What action does he now propose to take in order to protect defenceless British citizens in Scotland?
SUPPORT FOR TIMOTHY RUSTIGE
On Wednesday, 20th March, Timothy Rustige (Rusty), of Prisoners of Conscience International, is due to appear at an interim hearing at Aberdeen Sheriff Court at 10.00 hrs, facing a criminal charge.
I would appreciate it if anyone in the area who believes in decency, justice and the protection of Scottish children and the disabled against sexual abuse, may be able to attend in support of Rusty.
Rusty was snatched from his home near Manchester in March last year by Grampian Police, had his home violated and was taken to Aberdeen and thrown into a police cell on the orders of Dame Elish Angiolini.
In comparison, we now know that Sir Jimmy Savile spent 50 years raping, molesting and terrorising defenceless children, the sick and disabled. He was never even arrested and it is known that the police actually threatened some of his victims with arrest , should they persist with their allegations against this great man, friend of Prime Ministers and the Royal Family.
An outside observer, unfamiliar with the current ways of Britain, would logically conclude that Rusty`s alleged crime, by definition, must be far worse than any of those attributed to Savile.
What unspeakable crime then, could Rusty possibly be accused of?
Well, it is said that he actually had the temerity of suggesting that the much-loved Dame Elish Angiolini may not be entirely suitable for a senior, publicly-funded post at St Hugh`s College, Oxford.
I know, it is shocking.
In defence of Dame Elish, she really does have many powerful and influential admirers. One group may include members of Scotland`s paedophile elite, who will doubtless be immensely grateful for her contribution in connection with Operation Planet in 1991, in trying to have certain sexual acts involving minors decriminalised.
Another section of devotees is certain to exist within the quaintly named “Scottish justice system”. Dame Elish bravely stood up against the Supreme Court, who ruled that those charged with crimes by the police in Scotland should be allowed to have a lawyer present at the time, under human rights legislation. To give her credit, Angiolini was having none of this “human rights” nonsense and maintained her stance, even when severely admonished by Lord Hope, of the Supreme Court (see the Peter Cadder ruling).
Finally, perhaps the most powerful of all her admirers may be found within the CIA, who must have greatly appreciated her keeping her mouth shut over as to who was really responsible for the Lockerbie bombing and by gallantly resisting all efforts to get to the truth, in her previous role of Lord Advocate.
There is much more to be said about Dame Elish`s public record, but this information should be enough to convince anyone to treat her henceforward with the degree of respect that she truly deserves.
On another point, it has been reported that Mr Cameron, on being questioned about the jailing of Chris Huhne, stated that it demonstrated that however high you may be, you are within reach of the law. The Prime Minister might try telling that to the victims of Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith. To bring us up-to-date, he may also try telling that to the relatives of the 1,200 people who needlessly died at the hands of the NHS in Mid-Staffs. He may try telling that to Hollie Greig.
Can anyone be in doubt that we now live in a perverted, inverted country where right is wrong and wrong is right?
OPERATION YEWTREE/HOLLIE GREIG/ANGIOLINI
First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of those people who were good enough to fill the Court on Wednesday in support of my challenge to Elish Angiolini`s legal action, which was intended to silence me. I was very moved that these kind people came along at very short notice, even from England, on a cold March morning in Edinburgh. May I also thank all those of you who were thoughtful enough to send me messages of support prior to the Hearing. It meant a lot to me and I know that this loyal backing means a great deal to Hollie.
I was treated very fairly by the sheriff, Lord Glennie, who adjourned the hearing until 1st May in order for me to obtain the level of professional legal representation he believed was necessary in order to defend myself against Angiolini. I am also grateful for the efficient manner in which I was represented by my Counsel, Laura-Anne Van Der Westhuizen. The next hearing is scheduled to be on Wednesday 1st May. There are no reporting restrictions.
Elish Angiolini appears to be under the impression that in spite of being an individual who is highly paid from public funds, she has been treated harshly by my criticism of her conduct whilst in public office. Any possible misunderstandings that she may perceive to exist could well have been resolved by now, had she not chosen to refuse to be cross-examined under Oath at my trial when cited to do so.
She did not appear at the hearing and neither did one of her chief lawyers, the highly controversial Professor Peter Watson of Levy & McRae. It is Watson who was behind the cruel and disgracefully unbalanced article that appeared in the Sunday Herald on 17th June 2012. What is there to be said about a powerful and influential man who is prepared to authorise a public attack on a defenceless and disabled woman rape victim?
Operation Yewtree approached me a few weeks ago following widespread public concern about the handling of Hollie`s case. I was invited to be interviewed at the HQ in London and to provide copies of all expert witness supporting documents as well as those indicating the existence of Grampian Police corruption and the possible obstruction by leading figures in the Scottish establishment. The interviewing officers made it clear that due to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the case and those connected to it, which included the mysterious death of Robert David Greig, it would need to be examined at a high level. I warned the officers that the Scottish authorities would place every possible obstacle in their path when Operation Yewtree tried to establish the truth about these horrific crimes.
The officers agreed that they could find no reason whatsover for the failure of Grampian Police to even question one of the 29 people, alleged perpetrators and fellow victims, named in my presence by Hollie before DC Lisa Evans on 8th September 2009. This utter and unjustifiable failure by the police was established at my trial.
All this has not prevented Mr John McSporran, of the Police Complaints Commission Scotland, from regurgitating Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill`s ludicrous mantra that “a thorough police
investigation had already taken place”. I have asked the current Commissioner, John McNeill, if he agrees with Mr McSporran. I have also asked him to confirm that he is aware of the contents of page 31 of the previous PCCS report that states that Grampian Police deliberately withheld two crucial expert witness statements from the Prosecutor. These documents were those of Dr Jack Boyle and Dr Eva Harding, which unequivocally supported Hollie`s claims and within the statements, four of the alleged perpetrators were actually named, as well as a reference to a previously recorded sexual offence by one of them. The PCCS at the time of the initial investigation were also aware that the police had intervened before Hollie`s first allegations, when Anne Greig had been injured to the extent that she had to spend one night in hospital after being hit over the head with a vacuum cleaner by one of those named in the aforesaid documents.
At least, I do understand now that the Scottish authorities have finally accepted that Hollie has been the victim of serious sexual crimes. As a competent and truthful witness, she has clearly named her attackers. What is the so-called Scottish justice system going to do about it?
Those who may also wish to discover why the PCCS appear to be preventing Operation Yewtree from instigating a proper inquiry into extremely serious sexual crimes should call 01698 542900.
The intervention of Operation Yewtree has come as a result of all the wonderful and persistent efforts from many of the readers of this blog. Your gallant perseverance in informing politicians and the media have also been highly influential and I thank you all for your decency, compassion and courage in trying to have a proper investigation into this terrible scandal, which like the Savile debacle, has resulted in defenceless children and the disabled suffering unspeakable ordeals as a result of the craven or acquiescent conduct of those we trust to protect our most vulnerable citizens.
Thank you all again for everything you have done over the past few years. Hollie Greig is an amazingly courageous woman. She deserves every support and so do all the other victims of such vile crimes perpetrated by Savile and those like him.
IN COURT IN EDINBURGH, WEDNESDAY 6TH MARCH
I am challenging the Citation issued on behalf of Elish Angiolini, which was designed to effectively prevent me from criticising her conduct in public office.
A hearing will be held at 10.00 hrs, at the Court of Session, Parliament House, Parliament Square, Edinburgh EH1 1RQ, case number A237/12. I shall be present, as emergency Legal Aid has just been granted to me, following months of effort, so that I can finally have an appropriate level of legal representation. The Court is open to both press and public and if anyone in the Edinburgh area would be so kind as to attend, it would be greatly appreciated.
Since being served the Citation on 15th May 2012, whilst I was still in prison and thus had no opportunity to challenge it at the outset, I have been persistently denied the Legal Aid I require in order to challenge what I believe to be an imposition on my right to freedom of speech. I also regard it as against the wider public interest, as it is linked to having the effect of partially suppressing issues related to the horrifying crimes committed against Hollie Greig.
Furthermore, it has been discovered that an objection had been lodged in order to block the application for the provision of the Legal Aid on which I was dependent. Clearly, this could only have been motivated by a desire to place me at a most unfair disadvantage in Court. In legal terms, as a foreigner in a country in which I do not reside and with no knowledge nor requirement to have knowledge of Scottish Law, it would have been utterly unacceptable and thus flies in the face of any civilised concept of justice. This situation would have been amplified further by the fact that my adversary is a wealthy woman with extensive knowledge of and influence within the Scottish legal system.
The identity of the individual responsible for presenting the objection remains a mystery. The senior partners of Angiolini`s two representing law firms, Alfred Tyler of Balfour Manson and Peter Watson of Levy & McRae refuse to comment. Who knows?
I must stress that the hearing is a procedural one, so that it is unlikely that any firm outcome will be reached, but if anyone can come along, I should be most grateful.
TIME FOR ACTION IN SCOTLAND
It is time for the Scottish authorities to cease obstructing queries about the serious crimes committed against Hollie Greig and probably others. It is now clearly established that Grampian Police utterly failed to conduct any adequate investigation, based on the fact that Hollie`s allegations of sexual abuse were not only accepted as being made by a truthful and competent witness, but were also entirely supported by expert witness documentary evidence. DC Lisa Evans and DI Alex Dowell are the officers responsible. There can be no excuse.
Furthermore, Grampian Police confirmed that they had withheld two crucial expert reports, those of Dr Jack Boyle and Dr Eva Harding, from both the Prosecutor and Commissioner Jim Martin of the Police Complaints Commission Scotland. It would appear to be a prima facie case of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Hence, police corruption is undoubtedly set to be a major factor in this affair, to which can be added the irregularities over issues concerning my arrest, being charged and matters connected to my eventual trial. When I was first arrested and charged, my human rights were breached by the refusal of DS Drummond and DC Crowder to allow me the legal representation to which I was entitled. DS Drummond went on to falsify the transcript of the relevant interview, by omitting a key passage relating to the death of Robert David Greig. It was only a timely intervention by my solicitor, Mr Gerry Sweeney, that forced the officer to hand over the audio that proved my point.
Whilst being held in custody in Aberdeen, a team of four led by DS Brian Geddes raided my home in Cheshire. No inventory was provided of the copious amounts of material removed from my home, which included a detailed record of Hollie`s police interview of 2009 with DC Lisa Evans, who was also a member of the raiding team. The document would have been of some value to my defence at the trial, but was not produced by the Crown and has never been seen since.
The Hollie Greig case could, nonetheless, still be dealt with reasonably promptly but for the obstruction of the SNP government. Notwithstanding that this is not a political issue, it would just take one member of the government to possess a sufficiency of integrity, patriotism and courage in order for the impasse to be alleviated. It would certainly appear that current members of the Scottish Cabinet regard their priority to be the protection of Alex Salmond, Kenny MacAskill and the coterie that surrounds them, rather than standing up for defenceless Scottish child and disabled victims of the most vile crimes.
COMPLAINT AGAINST SHERIFF PRINCIPAL EDWARD BOWEN
To date, over a year since my trial was over, I remain unable to obtain either audios or transcripts from the Scottish Crown Office, save the falsified one of the Sheriff`s sentencing remarks. As a result of these obstructions, I have now issued a formal complaint about Sheriff Principal Bowen`s conduct.
Sheriff Principal Bowen failed to disclose to the Court and defence the existence of a recent ten-year association with key cited defence witness Elish Angiolini, who refused to attend the Court to face cross-examination (the pair resigned from the organisation concerned within 24 hours of each other in May 2011). Unsurprisingly, Bowen allowed his associate to stay out of Court, hence decreasing my prospects of a successful defence.
Bowen also allowed yet another cited defence witness, Procurator Fiscal Stephen McGowan, regarded by my defence team as again very important, to avoid cross-examination. Astonishing though it may seem to an outsider, Bowen then allowed Mr McGowan to lead for the prosecution against me!
The Scottish justice system is currently truly Kafkaesque. No wonder respected legal figures like Jock Thomson QC describe the country as a “banana republic”.
There is more.
I was very grateful indeed to those people, who numbered over 200, who had the decency and courage to write formal letters to the Court in support of my stance over the Hollie Greig issue. Just twenty or so minutes after being handed these documents, Bowen pronounced sentence on me of a year`s imprisonment. Clearly he had further completely disregarded signed Court documents produced in my defence.
During the sentencing statement, Bowen went on to make a blatantly racist statement against me. This was omitted from the only transcript so far issued by the Crown Office and the truth could be readily established if only the audio was to be produced,
Throughout the trial itself, in which I had cynically been denied a jury by the Crown Office, it became evident that Sheriff Principal Bowen saw his role as not towards his duty to dispense justice with impartiality, but to protect fellow members of the Scottish establishment. He had no regard for fairness, the evidence, my human rights nor, most importantly, to assist in protecting Scottish children and the disabled from sexual abuse.
Bowen even accused me of having a twisted mind for not accepting the evidence of those accused, whom the Court had actually prevented me from interviewing prior to the trial. On the contrary, I would suggest that those likely to have twisted minds are the ones who refuse to accept the evidence of expert witnesses Dr Frances Kelly, Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Paul Carter, Dr Eva Harding, Ruth Beckmann and Susannah Seymann of the Down`s Syndrome Association, D.I. Iain Alley, his fellow police officers and the assessors of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Among the individuals who have disregarded this wealth of powerful professional evidence clearly includes Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen.
During course of the trial, prosecution witness Sheriff Graham Buchanan made an interesting remark under Oath. In the continued absence of the official records, I shall quote as accurately as I can from my own notes, taken at the time.
He said, “I became aware that David Icke was involved in supporting the case. A strange fellow, I then knew that there could not possibly be any truth in this story.”
Now that the media has belatedly caught up with David Icke over the exposure of Jimmy Savile, perhaps Sheriff Buchanan may have cause to regret making such a rash and inaccurate comment.
BBC`S STEPHANIE HARRIS UPDATE, ETC
Regarding my last blog, Stephanie Harris is still refusing to clarify the background for her stance in attempting to defend Mark Daly. She has yet to confirm whether she has actually read the documentation that formed the basis for BBC Scotland`s commissioning of two programmes on Hollie Greig.
I have specifically asked if she has read page 31 of the PCCS document she rather misguidedly and selectively chose to refer to in her letter. There, in section 12, mention is made of two expert psychological witness documents. To paraphrase the Commissioner, Jim Martin, he concluded “In my view, the response of the police force does not provide the complainer (Anne Greig) with a reason why these reports were not sent to the Procurator Fiscal.”
Followers of Hollie`s case will not be surprised to learn that these two reports that Grampian Police deliberately withheld from both the Prosecutor and the Commissioner were those by Dr Jack Boyle and Dr Eva Harding, exactly the documents that were accepted by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to make an award to Hollie as a victim of crime. These totally supported Hollie as being a victim of serious sexual crime and within them, four abusers were actually named.
Dr Boyle`s report stipulated that one of the two people named by Hollie against whom evidence was the strongest had already been convicted of a sexual offence in 1997, unrelated to Hollie`s allegations.
In Dr Harding`s detailed analysis, one of those named was a senior police officer. This same officer had also been controversially involved in the celebrated Shirley McKie case, ironically covered by BBC Scotland on 7th February 2006. Ms McKie was a police officer who lost her career due to false allegations made against her. It seems that evidence withheld by the officer named by Hollie could have exonerated Ms McKie.
There is no credible reason why the PCCS Commissioner should not have both demanded to see the vital expert witness documents from the two doctors and why Grampian Police chose to conceal such evidence but is it any wonder that Grampian Police blatantly sought to obstruct the course of justice?
There is one other issue that should addressed, albeit briefly.
It must be reiterated that the main purpose of the Hollie Greig campaign was to ascertain that Grampian Police should carry out an appropriate investigation into allegations of serious sexual offences by simply questioning those identified and in line with current police procedures into this type of case, to examine the computers of those accused. The police failed to perform these most
fundamental duties. To eliminate any misunderstanding, whilst I would have anticipated firm action based on the weight of evidence, if the police had subsequently decided, after carrying out the aforesaid procedures, that they were unable to arrest, let alone charge, any of those named, there would have been nothing further that I could have reasonably done and I would have had little option but to accept the situation.
However, as it stands, the police`s inaction was and is utterly indefensible, also bearing in mind that quite apart from the four previously referred to, two of the others identified by Hollie had direct access to children and the disabled.
In cases such as this, where powerful and wealthy members of the establishment may in some way be implicated, either as abusers or by taking part in a cover up, it is only to be expected that systematic efforts to undermine the case will take place, often from those masquerading as “caring” individuals. This includes all-too-predictable smears and insinuations, in this case all the more despicable and cowardly because those responsible know full well that Anne Greig cannot presently respond in defending her daughter due to the severe legal constraints placed upon her.
Again, there is absolutely no doubt that Hollie Greig has been the victim of the most grave sexual abuse.
What kind of person would be motivated to try to discredit a disabled rape victim and who would even want to listen to such an individual?
BBC SCOTLAND AND THE HOLLIE GREIG CASE
In the wake of the BBC`s conduct over the Jimmy Savile issue and the Newsnight programme, the BBC Trust has been contacted over BBC Scotland`s abrupt decision to withdraw from broadcasting two commissioned programmes about Hollie`s case in 2009.
Stephanie Harris, BBC`s Head of Accountability, has responded in a most unsatisfactory manner by failing to support the complaint as a result of inadequate research. The reasons for her decision seem to rest largely on the unwise production of a selected piece from a lengthy document that the BBC had already agreed was flawed and on accepting at face value, an explanation by a transparently unreliable witness, journalist Mark Daly.
Those who have already viewed the overwhelmingly supportive evidence for Hollie`s case and the details of BBC`s commitment will understand, I feel sure. For those who have not seen it, here is the link. Please note that I do not enter the programme until 47 minutes have elapsed.http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-live-8th-november-2012
No fair-minded person could surely have any doubt that on the basis of this expert witness evidence, Hollie Greig was indeed the victim of sexual crimes against her and that the police`s utter refusal to investigate in 2009 was indefensible.
A revealing example of Mark Daly`s lack of credibility appears in Ms Harris`s report, which seems to have been allowed to go unchallenged, probably due to the Head of Accountability`s failure to personally scrutinise the crucial documents on which the BBC mainly relied as a basis for its documented enthusiasm to commission the two programmes. I quote from Ms Harris`s letter that Mr Daly now says “We felt the claims about Hollie`s family abuse might possibly have been true (I no longer hold that view)”.
Yet in a letter from the BBC written by Mark Daly after the withdrawal, he says “We are convinced that Hollie was indeed abused and we do not dispute the police and professional evidence regarding what happened to her.”
If you care to look at the evidence contained in the link above, you will see that Mr Daly`s latest revised opinion is absolutely without foundation, yet Stephanie Harris has allowed it to influence her decision. What Mark Daly is saying, although this is in direct contradiction to his opinion when we were in discussion in 2009, is that he now sees fit to regard himself more qualified, as a journalist who was only involved in the case for a few weeks, to judge Hollie`s complaints than all the expert witnesses, most of whom dealt directly with Hollie.
Those who gave this entirely supportive evidence include Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Frances Kelly, Dr Eva Harding, Dr Paul Carter, Ruth Beckmann and Susannah Seymann of the Down`s Syndrome Association, plus Detective Inspector Iain Alley and his fellow police officers. Additionally, there is the not insignificant matter of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority`s acceptance of the weight of evidence in supporting a financial award to Hollie as a victim of the crimes. Yet Mark Daly, in his own eyes at least, thinks he is now better able to make a contrasting judgement.
Readers are all entitled to their views about Mark Daly`s statement.
I cannot comment, of course, on any other complaints that have been presented to the BBC over the Savile case and others that may have similarities, but let us hope, in the public interest, that this is but an isolated lapse by the BBC`s Head of Accountability.
Naturally, a request for an appeal has been sent to the BBC Trust and copies of all the documentation accepted by Mark Daly in April 2009 as an essential basis for investigation have been forwarded to Director-General Tony Hall and BBC Trust Chairman, Lord Patten.
WORSE THAN SAVILE?
On the 8th September 2009, I was present when Hollie Greig, an accepted competent and truthful witness, fully supported by expert police and medical witness evidence, clearly identified members of the group who sexually abused her and other child victims to Grampian Police`s DC Lisa Evans. The others in attendance during the three and a half hour interview were a police officer from West Mercia and a Shropshire social worker. Four of those named as abusers were also identified on some of the expert witness statements. One of them was a senior Grampian Police officer.
For my part, I made the assumption, wrongly as it turned out to be, that my role in the campaign for justice for Hollie and the others was coming to an end. I took it that the police would now question all those named, along with other normal police procedures in this type of case which includes checking the computers of those accused.
Naturally, I could play no part in deciding whether those in question should be charged or even arrested, although evidence was particularly strong against the four previously mentioned. Two, in particular, were described unequivocally as abusers in an expert statement accepted by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority as being of sufficient strength for Hollie to be given an award as being a victim of the the crimes. These two subsequently made no complaint against me naming them during the case against me and one of them had a previous record of a sexual offence unrelated to Hollie`s allegations.
Still, no one was even questioned, despite Hollie`s incredible bravery in reliving her horrifying ordeals.
Had Grampian Police conducted an investigation in an appropriate manner, I would have had nothing more to do with the case. My part in it would have been over, regardless of any subsequent decisions made by the police and Elish Angiolini at the Crown Office.
In particular, I hold DC Evans and the chief officer in the case, D.I. Alex Dowell, responsible for refusing to undertake their duties in investigating crime and protecting the public.
DC Evans, who gave evidence at my trial, confirming on oath that nothing had been done, has taken the brunt of the criticism so far. She was also among the party, led by D.S. Brian Geddes, who raided my home in England whilst I was being held in Aberdeen, removing key defence evidence that was withheld at my trial. One important document, containing most of the detailed notes taken when Hollie gave her interview, has never been seen since. D.I. Dowell did not appear at the trial and has kept his head down, leaving his junior officer to face most of the criticism.
Now allow me to consider, in comparison, Jimmy Savile`s evil sexual crimes conducted so blatantly over fifty years, causing unimaginable suffering to so many vulnerable, disabled and sick children. He was never even arrested, let alone charged.
I was sentenced to one year`s imprisonment for trying to trying to protect children from monsters like Savile, given the police`s complete failure to do so. Moreover, I am not the only one to see the inside of a prison cell over trying to help Hollie Greig. There are two brave Scots and one Englishman, Rusty, of Prisoners of Conscience International, the latter being snatched by Aberdeen police from his home in the Manchester area last year, accused of daring to criticise the appointment of Elish Angiolini to a prestigious, publicly-funded position in England. Furthermore, Rusty and his wife have just been threatened again by Grampian Police`s DC Ann-Marie Sinclair. This officer and a colleague, made a completely pointless 700-mile round trip to Manchester in another attempt to intimidate the couple, all at considerable public expense, apparently on the orders of the Scottish Crown Office.
Eminent and highly-respected Scottish Advocate Jock Thomson QC recently described the Crown Office as being “institutionally corrupt” and in a “handcart to Hell.” It is not difficult to conclude why Mr Thomson made those public remarks.
Clearly, it can safely be deduced that in this country, the two gallant Scotsmen, Rusty and I are considered by the police to be more dangerous than Savile and the others who have systematically raped and tortured children and the disabled.
What a perverted, inverted world we live in.
“OUR” SECURITY SERVICES -_JUST WHO`S SIDE ARE THEY ON?
The security services currently set great store on their efforts to protect us all from acts of terrorism. Whilst this may well be true, what steps are being taken to protect our children, the sick and the disabled, from being terrorised by magic circle sexual predators like Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith?
In the case of Jimmy Savile, I return to the question of who recommended him for a knighthood in 1990, a full 35 years after knowledge of his sick predilections first became known.
I have approached the Honours & Appointments Committee spokesman, Mr Gary Rogers, on this very point on 0207 276 2777. It must be said that I found Mr Rogers to be most courteous and helpful. He explained that due to confidentiality constraints, he was unable to disclose the identities of those involved, which was the position in every case and not specifically related to Savile. Mr Rogers went on to tell me that anyone at all was entitled to propose an individual for an honour, but that it was normal procedure for the Committee to ask for letters of support from others, which is interesting in itself in relation to Savile, who by 1990 was certainly notorious for his sexual conduct towards the vulnerable.
He suggested that I approach the Freedom of Information Commissioner, which has been actioned, for this disclosure, but said that the Honours & Appointments Committee normally oppose the publishing of identities. In view of the overwhelming importance of the Savile case and that Mr Rogers had admitted that the Committee may well, with hindsight, have viewed the original proposal differently, I suggested that I did not think the public would understand that there could be any justifiable reason for the Honours & Appointments Committee to attempt to suppress the truth about those who had supported Savile. Mr Rogers then stated that each case is taken on its merits. Let us see what happens next.
Much the same can be said about Cyril Smith`s knighthood, which was awarded in 1988, a full 23 years after he had been first arrested for a sexual offence against a minor. Like Savile, it is now perfectly clear that many people, including those in authority, subsequently knew all about his criminal predisposition, with one report by a former police officer indicating that on one occasion, Smith`s file was seized by MI5 just before he was due to be charged.
What then were the security services doing in not warning Her Majesty The Queen how inappropriate it would be for Savile and Smith to be honoured and in the case of Savile, why did they not also warn Mrs Thatcher and the Prince of Wales that any personal friendship or association with a known sexual molester of children should be completely out of the question?
It would be most interesting to hear if any credible or rational explanations can be provided about these matters.
ANGIOLINI/CONVICTION CHALLENGE AND APPEAL
I am being asked what progress has been made on these two issues.
In the case of Elish Angiolini`s Citation, this was presented to me without prior notification whilst I was in prison, thus offering me no opportunity to challenge it initially, including its provably false statements. Since then my legal team has endeavoured to obtain the Legal Aid I require in order to contest this restriction on my freedom of expression. The Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) has consistently refused to grant me the aid I need. SLAB has confirmed that an objection to my receiving such aid has been lodged but it has presently chosen to obstruct my request for disclosure of the objector`s identity.
At the same time, Angiolini`s solicitor, Balfour & Manson, has refused to deny the allegations published in Scottish legal magazines about the existence of a “slush” fund. This refers to public money that may be accessed by Lords Advocate, past and present, in order to take out private legal actions which may result in their personal financial gain. Thus, it remains uncertain whether access to public funds that may have been granted to Angiolini to pursue me are being denied to me in order to defend myself. Balfour & Manson is in a position to clarify this issue, so that no misunderstanding or suspicion need exist, but has so far declined to do so.
As regards the proposed challenge to my conviction, I have tried without success to obtain the audios and accurate transcripts of my trial. I wish, in particular, to scrutinise sworn statements from four of the prosecution witnesses and one made by Sheriff Principal Bowen on sentencing me. The transcript published so far has been falsified by omitting a certain racially offensive comment made by the sheriff.
I have frequently mentioned the vital evidence provided by Grampian Police`s DC Lisa Evans at my trial, particularly in relation to her interview with Hollie Greig on 8th September 2009, that I witnessed. As the official Court records continue to be withheld from me, I shall quote from the notes I took at the time during the trial, referring to some of the most salient questions put to DC Evans by my Counsel, Andy Lamb QC.
Andy Lamb QC “Did Hollie Greig make a complaint about being sexually abused?”
DC Evans “Yes”
Andy Lamb QC “Was this related to sexual abuse years earlier?”
DC Evans “Yes”
Andy Lamb QC “Did Hollie name certain individuals who had abused her?”
DC Evans “Yes”
Andy Lamb QC “Were any of those named also on the list included in the leaflet?”
DC Evans “Yes”
DC Evans also told Mr Lamb that none of those identified by Hollie had been questioned. She also confirmed that notebooks pertaining to Hollie`s interview had been removed from my home during the police raid of 13th February 2010 in which she was present. One of the notebooks in which I had written detailed evidence about what I heard on the day that DC Evans interviewed Hollie was withheld by the Crown at the trial. This important witness document is still “missing”.
WHO NOMINATED SAVILE FOR A KNIGHTHOOD? As more information about the sheer scale of Savile`s activities continues to mount, the question must be, who allowed him to embark on his sickening 50-year reign of terror?
Who, in any position of authority, had the decency and courage to stand up and protect defenceless children, the disabled and even the terminally ill?
The answer, throughout this wonderful free and democratic country of ours, was absolutely no one.
So then who, exactly, was conspiring to protect him, even to the extent of threatening those victims who dared to speak out, something we know all about in the Hollie Greig case?
We could possibly learn a little more if we knew who had nominated Savile for a knighthood in 1990. As we now know, there must have been literally hundreds of people who were aware of his appalling predispositions since it is known that he was first reported in 1955. How could such a blatantly notorious individual be so honoured by Her Majesty the Queen?
It is surely not unreasonable to suggest that whoever was responsible for nominating him was either staggeringly uninformed or an accomplice who saw Savile being granted a badge of honour as an excellent way of enabling him to carry on as before. In fact, let us take it further. Who was culpable in failing to tell a former Prime Minister (Lady Thatcher) and the heir to the throne that long-term friendships with Savile were completely inappropriate?
The latest edition of the Sunday Express demonstates the boldness and public-spiritness of its editor in publishing its lead article describing previously unmentioned horrors attributed to Savile. It is also a tribute to the courage of that highly-regarded professional, Dr Valerie Sinason, for her important cooperation. Dr Sinason has battled bravely for years in her unstinting and selfless efforts to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Hers is a voice that must be heard.http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/370439/Jimmy-Savile-was-part-of-satanic-ring
No one can doubt that a very powerful paedophile network is at large in our land and that it continues to exert its malevolent influence at high levels of public life. Thus, it would not be surprising if its organisation were to be galvanised into action in some scurrilous attempt to discredit the Sunday Express and Dr Sinason. Should such instances occur, take careful note of those responsible.
Finally, there could have been no chance of Savile ever being charged and arrested in this country while he was alive. Just imagine the important people that he could have implicated. Dead men cannot speak.
It is to the eternal shame of Britain that the shielding of powerful criminals is regarded by the state as having a greater priority than protection from unspeakable miseries endured by some of our most vulnerable citizens at their hands.
Although this blog exists primarily to feature updates on the Hollie Greig Campaign, there are sometimes other major issues that serve to highlight instances of flagrant disregard for the truth and for justice by the state which may be pertinent, outside the scope of the present plethora of paedophile abuse cases instigated by the exposure of the Jimmy Savile scandal.
Dr Jim Swire, a gallant and honourable gentleman who lost his daughter on that tragic night of 21 December 1988, has since been seeking a way of establishing the true facts about the Lockerbie disaster. He wrote in The Firm magazine on 21 December 2012 that he considered that the cover up over Lockerbie to be even worse than that of Hillsborough. Whilst it is very difficult to imagine that in sheer scale, worse behaviour by the police, backed by corrupt politicians, could possibly exist in connection to the latter tragedy, I do tend to have sympathy for Dr Swire`s view, on the basis that in the case of Lockerbie, it seems that British justice was effectively suspended in deference to various international interests.
Readers will be aware that in the summer of 2009, the man convicted of committing the atrocity, Mr Al-Megrahi, was authorised to be released on the basis of compassionate grounds, as Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill informed the world. Mr MacAskill assured everyone that as Mr Al-Megrahi was was expected to die of cancer within three months at the maximum, he was going to be allowed to return to Libya, his native land.
Of course, we now know that he did not die within three months, but remained alive for a further three years. It surely beggars belief that a panel of cancer specialists, dealing with a case with such international ramifications, could have come to such a wildly inaccurate prognosis – unless they were being subjected to external pressure.
We now also know that Mr Al-Megrahi, just prior to his release on “compassionate grounds”, was planning a further appeal against his conviction, on the basis that new evidence, previously concealed by the authorities at his trial, would have been likely to have resulted in him being exonerated of the crime.
Even that was not the end of the suspicious events leading to the release.
It was revealed that the prosecution`s main witness against Mr Al-Megrahi, a Maltese businessman called Tony Gauci, had in fact been paid $2 million by the CIA and moreover, the presiding judge had been aware of this fact for some years previously.
Hence, the circumstances would indicate that Scottish Law had knowingly been subverted by the Scottish Justice Secretary in order to spare a foreign intelligence agency from being compromised.
Returning to Hollie`s case, how is one supposed to accept the word of this same Justice Secretary, when he claims that there was “insufficient evidence” for Grampian Police to embark on even the most cursory investigation into Hollie`s allegations?
I wrote once again to Mr MacAskill on 14th December 2012, quoting his statement in 2011, when he publicly stated that “Every case of rape is a horrific crime – whatever the circumstances – and no one should suggest otherwise”. I then asked him, “Do you think that anyone accused of such a horrific crime, as you describe it, by a reliable witness backed by expert witness supporting evidence, should be questioned by the police?”
It is the kind of question that one might reasonably assume would elicit a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer. It would seem that Mr MacAskill has unexpectedly regarded the question as so complex that he has passed it on to Miss C Blair, Deputy Secretary to the Solicitor General for Scotland, who has sent me a holding letter dated 4th January.
For some reason not immediately apparent, it seems that my devastatingly arcane enquiry needs to be considered at great length.
May I wish everyone a very Happy New Year and to thank you once more for your continued support in seeking justice for Hollie. I would also like to express my gratitude to all those kind people who sent cards to me. It was not really possible to reply to so many, so would you please accept both my appreciation and apologies?
I trust that films such as the one with the UK Column : –http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-live-8th-november-2012
have established clearly and finally that there is absolutely no dispute whatsover that Hollie Greig was a victim of the crime of sexual abuse. It remains difficult to comprehend the mentality and motives of those individuals who still persist, by flying in the face of documented evidence, to try to undermine the credibility of a truly heroic disabled victim of the most horrific crimes.
The very condition of Down`s Syndrome makes Hollie a witness of the highest reliability and with much expert documentary support plus the award from the CICA, there is simply no excuse for Grampian Police`s obstinate refusal to even question those Hollie identified to DC Lisa Evans, in my presence, on 8th September 2009.
That is not to say, of course, that those named could necessarily be convicted or even arrested, but the police`s complete failure to even interview any of those concerned, including alleged fellow victims, who, like Hollie, are all members of the various families, defies any rational explanation.
At the House of Commons meeting on 30th November 2011, at which I was invited to speak about the Hollie Greig case, co-speakers included police officers from South Wales, who had successfully brought about the conviction of members of the Kidwelly satanic ritual abuse paedophile ring. The officers explained that when a group of people are accused of paedophile and/or satanic ritual abuse of children and/or the disabled, normal police procedure is, in addition to the usual questioning, to examine the computers of those said to be involved. This is because groups of this type usually download child pornography and scrutiny of it also often establishes links between alleged offenders, which may well have been of considerable value in Hollie`s case. Downloading of child pornography is a criminal offence in itself and as it is much easier to prove than physical sexual abuse, police often utilise it as a back up should the actual abuse evidence not be strong enough to secure conviction.
South Wales Police resolutely followed these procedures with success. Grampian Police did not even bother to begin. It does not just make me wonder. It would surely make anybody wonder.
Grampian`s DC Lisa Evans swore in court that none of the procedures outlined were followed, but failed to offer any explanation for this failure. The officer in charge of the 2009 investigation, if investigation is even an appropriate term, was D.I. Alex Dowell. This officer has had nothing to say at all about this debacle.
Disturbingly, Hollie Greig`s is but one case amongst many, no doubt. In the light of the recent Jimmy Savile revelations, other prominent paedophile abuse issues and state cover ups in cases as diverse as the Hillsborough and Lockerbie tragedies, just exactly who are those responsible for the catalogue of cases where those in power have been caught attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice?
What has happened to our country?
May I take this opportunity to wish everyone who has supported Hollie Greig throughout this year a joyous Christmas and a Happy New Year. I am especially grateful to all those who were kind enough to write to me when I was in prison and for their generosity. Also, to the brave people who took personal risks over their own liberty in demonstrating for my release, especially in Scotland. I really cannot thank you all enough. Your efforts were of great help and comfort and assisted in obtaining my early release, as were letters to MPs which are now of particular value.
The latter part of 2012 has proved to be highly significant in the public perception of paedophile crime, largely as a result of the Jimmy Savile case and the fact that the BBC is known to be prepared to take steps to cover up for this type of behaviour, as in Hollie`s case. I believe that many people are overcoming their understandable revulsion when even thinking about these issues and are now realising that we all have a moral duty to stand up for the poor child and disabled victims of such vile crimes.
It must be transparently clear that these crimes could only be covered up by collusion with authorities at a very high level, hence the exposure of a very powerful and utterly ruthless paedophile network that permeates our society like some monstrous weed. Even before Savile, in an entirely different context, look at the official long-running complicity in falsehood over the Hillsborough tragedyand who can forget the gallant people of Merseyside who bravely and finally successfully took on the state for 23 long years.
In 2013, let us hope that more brave journalists from the mainstream media will come forward in exposing the shocking degree of state corruption in our country. It cannot continue to be left to those people in the free media who do have the courage to publish. I cannot possibly name them all, but I would like to pay tribute to Brian Gerrish and Mike Robinson at the UK Column, David Icke, Bill Maloney at Pie`n`Mash, Peter Cherbi, writing for the Scottish Law Reporter, Steven Raeburn at The Firm and Gordon Young at The Drum. The latter has just published an excellent article that refers to the Hollie Greig case and that Alex Salmond has now turned to that self-proclaimed specialist in suppression, Peter Watson of Levy & McRae for advice as to how to further control the Scottish media. This can be viewed as follows: –http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2012/12/17/tales-fraud-drugs-and-child-rape-why-it-s-vital-we-stop-alex-salmond-s-leveson
All of the brave men I have mentioned offer opinions on a wide range of subjects, with which you may agree or disagree. However, no-one can deny that they all possess the cardinal virtue of courage.
Progress has been made in the Hollie Greig case and it is expected that this process will continue towards the inquiry that is so clearly needed. The issue is not about whether those identified as abusers by Hollie can be found guilty in law or even arrested. When confronted with allegations of serious sexual crimes against children and the disabled, supported by expert witness documentation and the opinion of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, Grampian Police has refused to even question those named, let alone scrutinise their computers, which is normal police practice in cases of this kind. It has thus failed in its duty to all concerned, including to some of those who have been accused and have since protested their innocence. Others named have not complained about the allegations.
It is that simple.
Returning to current events in England, we are now seeing numerous ongoing instances of police questioning and even arresting people accused of sexual abuse based purely on verbal witness allegations going back thirty years in some cases. In contrast, the evidence supporting Hollie must be much stronger, but nothing whatsoever has been done by the Scottish police.
POLICE FAILURE TO QUESTION ALLEGED ABUSERS
Hollie Greig first made a complaint about serious sexual abuse about one person in May 2000. Grampian Police`s foresic medical expert, Dr Frances Kelly, immediately examined Hollie and found her claims to be entirely substantiated. Hollie made claims against further abusers in August of that year. Despite Dr Kelly`s analysis, the police failed to respond. Of course, I was not made aware of this case until late in 2008.
Following pressure to reopen the case, DC Lisa Evans interviewed Hollie, in my presence, on 8th September 2009. Hollie provided details of the alleged crimes, supported by identities and locations. We now know that the police did not even question a single person named, either of the alleged abuser or fellow victims. Unlike the situation in 2000, even more expert witness statements had since been made available to the police, unequivocally supporting Hollie`s claims, plus an acceptance by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority of the strength of that evidence by granting Hollie a financial award as a victim of grave sexual crime.
I should clarify one point recently made to me. Hollie`s mother was at no time present while Hollie was being formally interviewed in September 2009. Anne Greig was upstairs in the same building being interviewed over her own complaints by DC Tanya Leiper.
In stark contrast to the police`s complete refusal to question any of those in Aberdeen named by Hollie over such serious alleged crimes, once I had publicly highlighted the police`s failures at the end of 2009 and announced my intention to stand for parliament in the General Election of 2010, the Aberdeen force was galvanised into rapid action. In the space of six weeks, no fewer than 61 individuals were interviewed to give evidence against me. There were some curiosities among those interviewed, who claimed to be alarmed or distressed, not, it seems, by the police`s abject failure to protect vulnerable citizens, as one might reasonably have expected, but by my actions in bringing the potential danger to the public`s attention.
Although the police could not be bothered to talk to any of those in Aberdeen named by Hollie, two officers, DS Drummond and DC Crowder, later to be the ones who first arrested me, were dispatched on a 250-mile round trip to interview lawyer Professor Peter Watson, of Levy and McRae, at his office in Glasgow. It may be difficult to find justification for this action, conducted at considerable public expense, when one takes into account that there is no evidence whatsoever to link the good professor in any direct way with the crimes committed against Hollie. Nonetheless, in distant Glasgow, he apparently claimed to have been alarmed and/or distressed by my warning to the people of Aberdeen.
An even greater surprise to me was that the Crown finally disclosed in late 2011 that one of those who made a formal complaint against me was Councillor Alan Donnelly, former leader of Aberdeen Council`s Conservative group.
I should tell you that around the end of 2009, I was advised to approach the councillor about my worries regarding the possible danger to residents of the Ferryhill area, which he represents, as a result of police inaction. He expressed concern and surprise, particularly as he said that one of those identified by Hollie was a Conservative activist. Notwithstanding this, we engaged in some amicable discussions, on the understandable basis that he would like to meet me and look at the key documentary evidence I held, in order for him to formulate a balanced opinion, in the interests of those in the said ward.
We arranged a meeting at Union Square, Aberdeen on the evening of Friday, 12th February 2010, the day I intended to introduce myself to the Aberdeen electorate. Councillor Donnelly could not meet me in the morning of that day, as he was attending a Scottish Conservative Conference in Perth, at which David Cameron was the main speaker. Of course, our meeting did not materialise, as by that time I was in solitary confinement in the police jail, having been snatched from the street by DS Drummond and DC Crowder that morning and denied my legal and human right to legal representation.
When I read the documents disclosed by the Crown in late 2011, I discovered that Councillor Donnelly had in fact made a formal complaint against me in January 2010!
I think it reasonable to suggest that Councillor Donnelly thus deliberately deceived me, betraying both my trust and goodwill, by pretending he was interested in the safety of those he purports to represent, whilst at the same time colluding to have me arrested and silenced. He was actually called for cross-examination at my trial, but failed to turn up.
The issue of Councillor Donnelly`s conduct is now with the Scottish Conservative Office and the main office in London has been copied in.
UK COLUMN VIDEO INTERVIEW
Thank you to all those who have contacted me in support of the programme, which enabled the viewing of some of the key documentary evidence. There is much more that exposes the failings of the authorities to act, but I`m sure that you will appreciate that due to delicacy of some of the contents, it would have been insensitive to publish this information. All that I can reiterate is that this harrowing expert witness evidence is also totally supportive of Hollie`s claims.
If anyone has not seen the broadcast and wishes to do so, here is the link: –http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-live-8th-november-2012
The interview with me commences approximately 47 minutes into the video.
In previous blogs, I have persistently asked, “Who proposed Jimmy Savile for a knighthood in 1990?”
The Prime Minister refuses to disclose this information, which must surely be regarded as being in the public interest. Now it may also be justifiably asked, “Who proposed Cyril Smith for a knighthood in 1988?”
Like Savile, it has been widely acknowledged that Smith`s sexual crimes against children had been known to the police, the DPP and it seems, MI5 since the Sixties. So how could anyone in a position of influence possibly imagine that he could be worthy of being honoured by the Queen in 1988?
What has become of our security services, vis-a-vis paedophile crime?
Does a de facto state of immunity exist, possibly on national security grounds, preventing dangerous sexual predators who happen to belong to the establishment from being charged?
Is it coincidental that Savile and Smith were both dead before being exposed for what they were?
It could well be that many prominent paedophiles could have been named by these two, but dead men remain silent.
One of the most fundamental obligations of any decent society must surely be the protection of its children and most vulnerable citizens, such as the disabled. The public surely deserve some honest answers, for a change. The popular press, TV and radio have a very important role to play in this regard. It should not be left entirely to those brave and public-spirited individuals in the free press to speak out. It is time for courage, not cowardice, in order to break this sinister magic circle of depravity and corruption that shames our country.
JIMMY SAVILE – WHY WAS HE KNIGHTED?
In 1990, Jimmy Savile was made a knight of the realm. According to statements made recently by many of those who worked with and observed him, his shocking behaviour towards youngsters and the disabled had been well known since the Sixties. In order for Savile to get away with his blatantly unacceptable conduct, he would need to be protected by various authorities, including the police. No one can surely be in any doubt now that the laws of our country, especially those designed to protect our most vulnerable citizens, have been systematically perverted and obstructed for years in order to shield a powerful and ruthless paedophile elite from scrutiny.
As knowledge of Savile`s activities are now so well established, again I would ask who it was who recommended him for a knighthood in 1990. Such an individual(s) must have been aware that he was widely regarded as a potentially dangerous criminal of the most cruel and perverted kind. Again, why was the Queen not warned about this?
I am often asked why it should be that the authorities in both Scotland and England are so transparently desperate to conceal the true facts about the Hollie Greig case. One cannot be sure, of course, but at this point it seems that unlike the cases of many of the victims of Savile and his accomplices, there is overwhelming supporting expert documentary evidence for Hollie`s allegations, plus the CICA award, clearly establishing beyond any reasonable doubt that the abuses occurred. The police`s abject failures to investigate are also equally clear.
Perhaps most of all, Hollie`s condition of Down`s Syndrome makes her one the most credible types of witness imaginable. Due to all the expert witness opinion, including that of the police, there can be absolutely no rational reason for Hollie`s testimony to be disbelieved. Moreover, she could not possibly be accused of even having any personal agenda for making a false statement. Hollie just tells the truth.
It may well be that it is this reason that frightens the paedophile establishment so much. Here is one witness who can neither be disbelieved nor discredited.
Let us hope that this young woman`s heroism may prove to be a turning point in the protection of our nation`s children and the disabled against the vested interests of vile and influential perpetrators, like Savile, who choose to abuse and exploit them.
SCOTTISH JUSTICE, SAVILE, COMMON PURPOSE, ETC
Since the televised interview with the UK Column, a number of people have approached me to ask about my appeal against the conviction imposed upon me by Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen.
My fundamental request for leave to appeal was rejected by Lord Bonomy of the Scottish Court. This individual has been closely associated with known sex offender Douglas Haggarty, so it may appear that my application has not necessarily been dealt with impartially. However, the circumstances surrounding my arrest, conviction and overall treatment by the Scottish justice system are so transparently outrageous that further steps are being taken with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board, who were helpful in highlighting serious irregularities connected to evidence in the original Lockerbie trial.
It was interesting to read the recent exposures of Common Purpose by the Daily Mail and the Sun and in particular, Sir David Bell and Julia Middleton. This highly dubious brainwashing organisation owes its existence to it being indirectly allocated huge sums of taxpayers` funds. It is likely that most taxpayers have been entirely unaware of this use of their money. It may be worth noting that some individuals connected to the Hollie Greig cover up have connections with Common Purpose, as did convicted paedophiles Matthew Byrne and James Rennie.
Recently, I made the point that it should be disclosed who it was who recommended Jimmy Savile for a knighthood in 1990, as we now know that his activities and perverted interests had been widely acknowledged since the Sixties. The Prime Minister has been challenged about this and has declined to answer, despite the public interest that must surely be paramount over this issue. One might also justifiably ask where the security services were at the time, in failing to communicate to Her Majesty The Queen that it was entirely inappropriate to honour an individual regarded by many
as a potentially dangerous criminal of the most disgusting kind.
One overwhelming problem continues to face the country at present, Whether you consider Hillsborough, Rochdale, Rotherham, Jimmy Savile, Hollie Greig, Oxford and Cherwell, ex Chief Constable Terry Grange, Haut De la Garenne and doubtless many other cases, the background is depressingly the same. It is the widespread failure of police forces throughout the land to properly investigate magic circle crimes, such as those committed by the likes of Savile, in situations where eminent and powerful individuals may be implicated. Sometimes, the behaviour of the police is even worse, as in the Savile, Haut De La Garenne and Hollie Greig cases, where victims and those who stand up for them become ruthlessly persecuted in attempts to intimidate them into silence.
This ongoing national scandal, surely one of the most shameful in recent history, must be addressed at the highest level and it is thus hoped that the Prime Minister will finally display real leadership over this shocking issue, without fear or favour.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LOYAL SUPPORT
I was grateful for being provided with the recent opportunity by the UK Column to discuss the Hollie Greig case and was especially glad that some important evidence could be viewed by so many loyal supporters who have previously often relied entirely on my assurances that such irrefutable documentation establishing Hollie as being sexually abused actually existed.
This expert witness evidence has been relied upon during the course of the campaign and please be assured that much more unpublished documentation exists to compromise certain individuals in positions of authority, not only in connection with the ordeals suffered by Hollie, but also with the death of Robert Greig and the abduction of Anne Greig by Aberdeen Social Services.
There can be no excuse for the failings of Grampian Police to conduct its duty to protect Scotland`s most vulnerable citizens, nor for the collaboration of the current Scottish government and justice system in its ruthless attempts to cover up the true facts about this shocking case.
The programme was also valuable in exposing the evasiveness and duplicity of senior individuals at the BBC, a common theme these days it would seem, particularly when the subject is tackling the vile abuse of Britain`s children.
Moving on to the Jimmy Savile scandal, it is now no surprise to observe efforts to mitigate the effects of the disaster that has befallen Britain`s powerful paedophile network by certain individuals in the media and in politics. Take careful note of those who currently try to divert attention away from the terrible crimes committed by Savile and his highly influential associates. No one should ever underestimate the strength and determination of the pro-child abuse lobby that exists at the heart of our society and its ability to intimidate, blackmail or bribe those who refuse to bend to its will. Every effort will be made to discredit, frighten and undermine witnesses and courageous people like Tom Watson MP.
Let us hope that there are more like him who have the decency and bravery to place the protection of our children before career considerations.
SCOTTISH CROWN OFFICE – “INSTITUTIONALLY CORRUPT”
On this occasion, these are not my words, but those of one of Scotland`s most respected and eminent QCs, Jock Thomson.
In a letter published in the legal magazine, The Firm, on 31st October, Mr Thomson goes on to refer the Scottish Law Reporter`s recent article about a secret Crown Office slush fund, which in turn may well be connected to attempts to silence public discussion of the Hollie Greig case. Mr Thomson`s letter received support on the following day by Scotland`s award-winning legal elder statesman, Ian Hamilton QC, who went on to be very critical of the conduct of the SNP government.
Yet at the summing up at my trial, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen stated that “by your campaign you have sought to undermine the criminal justice system and the government of Scotland as a whole.” He then proceeded to make a racist comment against me that was omitted from the official transcript. I would suggest that it is Sheriff Principal Bowen and his accomplices who are the ones guilty of undermining the integrity of the Scottish justice system.
The prime reason for my part in the campaign was merely to insist that Grampian Police should carry out an appropriate investigation against those named by Hollie Greig by questioning them and in line with normal police procedures, examining the relevant computers. The veracity of Hollie`s allegations was supported by expert medical and psychological evidence, an award given by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and by Grampian Police`s D.I. Iain Alley and its forensic medical expert Dr Frances Kelly. This is what D.I. Alley wrote in an official report dated 24th September 2003 – “The investigative officer at the time and others who have conducted further enquiry since, were all of the opinion that Hollie had been the victim of penetrative sexual abuse at some point in the past”. One of the alleged perpetrators was then named and this individual was again named along with others in formal reports by Dr Jack Boyle and Dr Eva Harding and by the Down`s Syndrome Association`s letter of 15th September 2005.
During police interviews, including one on 8th September 2009 at which I was present, involving DC Lisa Evans, Hollie had named many alleged perpetrators and victims. Every one of those named was a potential corroborative witness to crimes.
Were the police afraid that one of those who should have been interviewed might crack under questioning, with disastrous ramifications for certain figures in the justice and political hierarchy?
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, already thoroughly discredited over his palpably false reason for the release of Mr Al-Megrahi in the Lockerbie case, would certainly be one of those forced to resign and would have probably taken Alex Salmond with him, if only Scotland had possessed a free and fearless press.
In the rest of Britain, we can continue to reflect on the incalculable misery suffered by children and the disabled as a direct result of the unforgivable silence of those who knew all about the sickening crimes of Jimmy Savile but did nothing to stop him.
The time of acquiescence in the sexual abuse of children and the disabled in our country must be brought to an end without further delay and those responsible should face justice.
SAVILE – AND OTHER MATTERS
There appears to be little sign of the fallout from the Jimmy Savile debacle abating. More and more individuals are being drawn in. It must be obvious to anyone by now that Savile could not have misbehaved in such a blatant manner over the years had he not been protected by the state and not just by his senior collaborators at the BBC. Considering the sickening horror of his crimes, no stone must be left unturned in identifying exactly who his accomplices were.
An interesting starting point may be to discover just who recommended him for a knighthood, given that we now know that his unacceptable conduct had been widely known about for almost the last fifty years!
It would not be unreasonable to suggest that he may well have been honoured primarily for his procurement services to powerful and influential fellow paedophiles.
Returning to the BBC, former Director-General Mark Thompson is now under pressure from his prospective employers in the USA, as can be read in Joe Nocera`s article in the New York Times. It would seem to be beyond belief that Mr Thompson had no knowledge about Savile during his tenure, yet chose to do nothing about him. Mark Thompson certainly did know about the threats, in 2009, to BBC journalists Mark Daly, Kathy Long and Liam McDougall, in order to force the abandonment of two planned programmes about the paedophile abuse of Hollie Greig, because I told him so and copied him in with the supporting evidence.
When asked for his comments, Mr Thompson declined to provide a response. So too did Chairman of the BBC Trust, Sir Michael Lyons, who recently actually had the audacity to refer to the allegations against Savile as “hysteria”.
So much for the calibre of the men who run the BBC.
I have noted that a phrase much favoured by the police about Savile`s crimes is “insufficient evidence”, the same words used in an attempt to justify the total lack of investigation in Hollie`s case. Perhaps many of us may be forgiven for decoding these words as meaning, loosely speaking, “we know very well that the accused is guilty but the Chief Constable has told us to back off as some of his influential friends may well be implicated”.
Back in Scotland, the Crown Office is again refusing to respond to legitimate questions about its use of public funds. See the Scottish Law Reporter, http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-lord-advocates-secret-slush-fund.html
Finally, may I thank all those kind people who have supported Hollie and me that introduced themselves to me on Saturday at David Icke`s event at Wembley Arena. It was very much appreciated and I was struck by the number of people from overseas who knew all about the case.
David spoke eloquently and in a forthright manner about many issues of vital importance for his audience to consider. It would be very helpful for society if many of those who choose to mock and ridicule him possessed just one ounce of his courage.
ESTHER RANTZEN AND HOLLIE GREIG
In the light of the recent revelations about Jimmy Savile and the BBC, I have been asked if any assistance was ever offered by Esther Rantzen, in her role at Childline, for Hollie Greig.
The answer is “no”.
In early 2010, when I decided to stand for parliament in the constituency of Aberdeen South, campaigning on the failures of the local police to investigate the complaints made by Hollie Greig of sexual abuse, I contacted Esther Rantzen for support and advice, given that she and I were the only candidates in Britain standing specifically on the child abuse issue..
After I was arrested, just prior to commencing the campaign on 12th February 2010 and had my home in England ransacked by Scottish police whilst held in custody in Aberdeen, I assumed that this would persuade Ms Rantzen to speak up for me, at the very least because of the draconian treatment meted out in order to silence a parliamentary candidate with a policy similar to her own.
Esther Rantzen was not prepared to utter a single word of support publicly, either for me, or much more importantly, for Hollie Greig. Ms Rantzen was well aware of the clear expert witness evidence that Hollie had indeed been a victim of sexual abuse.
That was not the end of efforts to engage Ms Rantzen`s backing for a cause about which she has stated that she felt passionately.
In October 2010, she was designated as the chief promoter of a Channel 5 programme entitled “Community Champions”. Viewers were invited to vote for whoever they thought had done most to work for the benefit of the community. A documentary was to be broadcast about the winner and the contribution the successful individual had made. In respect of Ms Rantzen`s widely-known position at Childline, viewers might reasonably have expected that the programme would welcome votes cast for anyone who had attempted to defend the very kind of vulnerable children that Ms Rantzen claimed to protect.
This proved not to be the case.
Well-known anti-paedophile campaigner Chris Wittwer and I were leading the national voting comfortably, only for the programmers to abruptly disqualify us both without any credible explanation and in doing so, blatantly disregarding the opinions of the voters. Following this extraordinary conduct by the programme`s controllers, Bill Maloney, Brian Gerrish and Ian Josephs, all known for their courageous efforts to protect defenceless children, each took the lead with the voters, only to be dealt the same fate that had befallen Chris and me.
The programmers would do nothing about this blatant rigging of the vote. I then approached Esther Rantzen to intervene on behalf of those who shared what we then took to be her own publicly-stated stance, especially as it was she who had chiefly promoted the programme and asked the public to vote!
Ms Rantzen again declined to say a word.
In retrospect, as we now know that her circle of acquaintances included such individuals as Jimmy Savile and Dame Elish Angiolini, I realise that it may have been somewhat naif of me to expect her to assist in any way. To be fair, it may well be that Esther Rantzen, in her role at Childline, has indeed helped some children who have suffered from abuse, though not if your name happens to be Hollie Greig.
SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD, DOUGLAS AND CHARLES HAGGARTY
On 11th June 2012, the Herald Scotland announced that a Citation had been served upon me by Dame Elish Angiolini, the effect of which would prevent me from speaking about certain issues related to the accepted criminal abuse of a girl in Scotland, Hollie Greig.
I wish to challenge it, but would need to obtain Legal Aid in order to fund the expert professional legal representation necessary to allow me the opportunity of countering the said action against me. The Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB) has so far refused to grant me such funding.
Regular readers of this blog will be aware that one of the most senior posts at SLAB, that of Technical Head of Legal Services, is held by Douglas Haggarty, a known and recent sex offender. In 2009, he was discovered performing a sexual act with a teenage boy in the public toilets of a busy store in the centre of Glasgow. He was neither imprisoned for this nor dismissed from his position of trust and responsibility for the allocation of public funds in order that justice may be done. Those unfamiliar with the leniency usually offered to certain sex offender members of the Scottish legal establishment may be forgiven for finding this state of affairs somewhat baffling.
What is less well-known and even more bizarre, if that is possible, is that Douglas Haggarty`s brother Charles, a former clergyman in Aberdeen, is also a sex offender, as reported again in the Herald Scotland on 8th June 1990. Charles Haggarty was found to have committed a series of offences against young girls, including one involving an eleven-year-old in his manse. He moved to England, where his background was only discovered when the News of the World named him following investigations into the paedophile network, as a result of the murder of little Sara Payne.
Consequently, I do not think that my requests for legal aid can reasonably be expected to be dealt with impartially by SLAB while Douglas Haggarty remains there in a position of power and influence. It would surely not appear unreasonable to conclude that Mr Haggarty is likely to be sympathetic to fellow sex offenders and hostile to someone like me, who seeks to have their activities exposed, if justified, subject to the implementation of adequate and proper police investigations.
During the hearing on 17th February 2012, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen accused me of attempting to undermine the Scottish justice system before sentencing me to one year`s imprisonment. I would suggest to the Sheriff Principal that it is men like Douglas Haggarty and those who allowed him to remain in office, who really are the ones guilty of the undermining of justice and public trust in Scotland.
REMINDER ABOUT JOHN HEMMING`S BILL
I would like to take the opportunity to remind readers to contact their MPs to request their attendance on 26th October in the Commons to support John Hemming, when he presents his Private Member`s Bill. If successful, progress will be made in order to throw more light on concealed Family Court proceedings which will assist considerably in putting the interests of the children first, which is certainly not occurring in many well-publicised cases at present.
My own experience of both the secret Family Courts of England and Wales and the closed Courts of Scotland has convinced me that some judges will abuse this concealment from public and media scrutiny to behave in an inappropriate and even unlawful manner. Justice needs to be seen to be done and by definition, the current Family Court system fails to meet this basic criterion.
We shall certainly be aware on 26th October which MPs have the integrity to prioritise the safety and protection of our most vulnerable citizens. I`m sure that many will already be aware that when contacting your MP, it is necessary to provide your address and telephone number, but this is a polite reminder to do so.
Referring to my last blog, I remain disappointed that the recent inaccurate and misleading article on the holliedemandsjustice site, published behind my back, was not taken down when I discovered it . I requested that the article be removed and that a brief and appropriate apology be made to me, which I would have been glad to accept and to move on with this vital case. The controller of the site, Ian Parker-Joseph, refused to cooperate.
Nonetheless, I would ask every one of our loyal supporters to continue to offer their full support for both Hollie and Anne, who continue to be faced with the most disgraceful persecution by the state. It is important not only for Hollie, but all the other Hollies, wherever they may be. Now, with the Jimmy Savile horrors galvanising public opinion, it is important to remain vigilant, as Britain`s powerful and influential paedophile network will undoubtedly be operating at full steam to minimise the effect of the Savile revelations. It must be obvious by now that the true source of Savile`s influence lay in his power to blackmail prominent members of society, almost certainly reaching beyond the confines of the BBC. Thus, all those of us everywhere who are trying to expose sexual abuse of children and the disabled can expect to continue to be faced with all kinds of dirty tricks and disinformation attempts, in order to undermine Hollie`s case and those like it. I think we can be sure of that.
IMPORTANT – MISLEADING STATEMENT ON THE HOLLIE DEMANDS JUSTICE SITE
I was surprised to learn of a totally misleading statement published on the above site, that is accessed by many people who are following the campaign, but a site with which I have no control or influence.
Although I have not yet had the opportunity to discover who exactly is behind this, I should make my position clear.
Although I no longer represent Anne and Hollie Greig and have not done so for a long time, as they have their own legal team now, as appropriate, I remain committed, as a private citizen with extensive knowledge of Hollie`s case and those related to it, to do everything I can within the correct framework to press for a full inquiry, not only in Hollie`s case, but also in the wider public interest, given the recent horrific exposures of similar cases coming into the spotlight. In particular, the conduct of the BBC comes into question again with its links to covering up the conduct of Jimmy Savile and BBC Scotland`s behaviour, primarily by reporter Mark Daly, who suddenly was forced to drop Hollie`s case after confirming a clear intention to broadcast.
Of course, I would not wish to go into too much detail until I have more information, but the sequence of recent events at the Royal Courts of Justice indicate that the state is now ruthlessly attempting to divorce and isolate Anne from her many supporters by intimidating her, exactly as occurred in separate case involving Cheryl Stannard, also connected to the abuse of children.
Like other brave individuals, Anne Greig has been brutally and continuously victimised by the state after showing great courage in standing up for her disabled daughter and other victims, real or potential.
This victimisation continues, it seems.
To suggest that I have withdrawn from pressing for justice over this terrible case is complete nonsense.
JUST WHO IS REALLY PROTECTING BRITAIN`S PAEDOPHILE NETWORK?
Over the past few weeks, more and more examples of state corruption and collaboration are emerging.
It seems that paedophile crimes are being covered up throughout the land. We have witnessed shocking events in Rochdale, Rotherham and South Yorkshire, Dyfed and Powys (the Chief Constable Terry Grange case), Oxford and Cherwell Valley and the disgusting sex abuse career of Jimmy Savile.
In each case, it seems clear that powerful and influential figures are being allowed to behave outside the law with impunity and by that I include both the abusers of children and those who collaborate with them.. If you happen to be a member of this informal “magic circle” or are in a position to blackmail any of these individuals, the state will protect you. This situation is epitomised by the example of Savile, who could blatantly get away with anything. He knew that the law of the land did not apply to him.
It is also perfectly obvious that in order to continue to provide cover for the activities of such wealthy criminals, any victims who are brave enough to complain, as well as as those who seek to come to their aid, are to be brutally persecuted by the state.
In Jersey, courageous former Senator Stuart Syvret was jailed for his gallant efforts to expose the innumerable horrifying crimes committed against children that took place at Haut De La Garenne by the likes of Savile and his fellow paedophiles.
Back on the mainland, outspoken anti child-abuse campaigner Chris Wittwer has clearly been targetted by the authorities in revenge for his public exposure of paedophiles.
So far, in the Hollie Greig case, it is not just me who has seen the inside of a prison cell. Englishman Tim Rustige and two brave Scots have been grabbed by Scottish Police for the “crime” of challenging the conduct of Scotland`s transparently corrupt regime. Additionally, former Down`s Syndrome Association Information officer John Smithies, was sacked for his support in pursuing the case of Hollie and in doing so, to help protect other Down`s Syndrome rape victims. John`s integrity and courage was rewarded by instant dismissal by current CEO Carol Boys. Just who has been leaning on the Down`s Syndrome Association and why?
In Oxford and Cherwell Valley, near the Prime Minister`s constituency, a very brave Muslim of Asian origin has been dismissed from his post for trying to protect white youngsters from white sexual abusers. This gentleman cannot yet be named, but he should be regarded as a heroic figure, without doubt.
Although the context is entirely different, one should also recall that the appalling debacle surrounding the Hillsborough tragedy was only exposed due to the extraordinary bravery and diligence of the people of Liverpool and Merseyside after 23 years of struggle, but illustrates again just how far the “magic circle” will go to protect its own.
This is the state of our country today.
May I urge more of the good people of the United Kingdom to stand up. Children throughout the land remain in danger, primarily due to either the active collaboration of certain individuals in positions of trust or far more frequently, the moral cowardice of those who put their careers, promotion prospects and pensions first.
One practical step in the short term that any of us can take is to ask your MP to support the Bill to be presented by John Hemming on 26th October in the Commons, details of which are on my previous blog, which will lead to greater transparency in the secretive and unsatisfactory Family Court system. The success of this Bill would do much to both alleviate the suffering of vulnerable children and parents and would place those who administer these proceedings under long-overdue press and public scrutiny.
JOHN HEMMING MP`S FAMILY JUSTICE BILL
This is a brief blog to ask for your MP`s support for John Hemming`s Private Member`s Bill, to be presented on 26th October in the Commons.
John`s Bill, if successful, should bring much overdue light and scrutiny into the abominably secret Family Court system, which has invariably led to much suffering in many cases, due to the arrogance, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence of certain social workers, lawyers and the judiciary. I have witnessed this type of disgraceful conduct first hand in the treatment of Hollie Greig and her mother by senior court officials who seem ill-equipped in both legal knowledge and in the sensitivity and humanity one would have thought to be essential personal qualities for this branch of the legal system.
For the sake of our children, may I ask that you petition your MP to attend and see that John`s Bill goes through. This has nothing to do with political allegiances. It has everything to do with decency and proper protection for those who currently suffer, including those poor parents who have been treated so cruelly and unjustly in the Family Courts.
If you would like further information, contact Ron Bailey at firstname.lastname@example.org
This is very important and your cooperation would be of great value to those who have no defence that they can rely on.
SHERIFF PRINCIPAL EDWARD BOWEN AND THE SCOTTISH JUSTICE SYSTEM
Many people have questioned the conduct and sentencing comments at my trial by the above sheriff.
It may be a good time to remind readers of some of the points he made in order to justify sentencing me to one year`s imprisonment. He described my conduct as “completely despicable.”
Hollie Greig, as mentioned previously, has unquestionably been the victim of criminal sexual abuse, based on expert medical and state evidence, including that of Grampian Police and its forensic medical officer. Hollie, also agreed by the experts to be a competent and truthful witness, described her alleged attackers and locations on 8th September 2009 to DC Lisa Evans of Grampian Police, in my presence. There can be no rational or credible reason to disbelieve Hollie. The experts certainly believed her. Therefore, someone must be responsible for committing crimes against her. It was established in court that not one of those named had even been questioned by the police, let alone have their computers examined, standard practice in this type of alleged crime. Moreover, given the nature of the crimes, it is reasonable to suppose that such crimes are likely to be repeated, with the resultant danger to the community.
My actions, which the sheriff found so despicable, were to highlight the failures of the police and other authorities to carry out their duties to protect citizens, especially vulnerable ones and to alert the citizens of the risk to public safety as the result of such failures.
Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion about my actions, but even if one was minded to consider the sheriff“s view, could it possibly be more despicable than convicted but influential sex offenders Liam Gibson (50,000 child pornography images), Douglas Haggarty QC, boss of the Scottish legal Aid Board (found having sex with a boy prostitute in a busy Glasgow store) or senior Procurator Fiscal Stuart MacFarlane (found having sex with a female prostitute in a public place in central Glasgow and then attacking and injuring the two police officers who arrested him)?
I was given a year`s jail sentence. The actual sex offenders all walked free.
The sheriff also stated that “the law is on the side of the innocent” – not if you happen to be Hollie Greig, one might reasonably suggest!
He also said that I had sought to undermine the criminal justice system and the Government of Scotland as a whole and had criticised the prosecuting authorities without justification. This was said in the full knowledge that I had provided documentation relating to senior figures justifying my stance entirely and that I, along with 76,000 others, suffered because I was denied legal representation on arrest, in direct contravention of Scotland`s own commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights. Lord Hope,of the Supreme Court, severely admonished the Scottish legal establishment after its ruling against Scotland in the famous Peter Cadder case.
It is not just Lord Hope, amongst eminent Scottish lawyers and judges, who has publicly reprimanded the justice system or its leading practitioners and politicians. Included in making condemnations are such figures as Jock Thomson QC, Chief Justice Arthur Hamilton QC, Anne Ritchie QC (Vice President of the Glasgow Bar Association), Professor Robert Black QC, senior advocate Iain Hamilton QC and Professor Alistair Bonnington, former law professor at Glasgow University and senior legal advisor to the BBC.
In fact, as reported on BBC News on 29th August, the professor described the current SNP government of doing more damage to Scots law than Westminster has achieved in 300 years and that long-held beliefs on the right to a fair trial had been dumped.He went on to criticise MSPs for passing legislation to create criminal offences which have been illegal under the protection of Common Law since the Middle Ages. He concluded that such actions were worthy of those of a totalitarian state.
Finally, returning to Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen, he denied my defence team the opportunity of questioning, on oath, two key cited defence witness who refused to face the Court and concealed from the defence his own ten-year relationship with one of them. It should also be noted that the Crown had earlier arbitrarily amended the charges to deny me the the right of trial by jury that I had sought.
Perhaps, therefore, the sheriff was a little hasty in his criticisms of me. It may also be said that he was less than impartial and honest with me. We shall see.
The Hillsborough verdict- a further symptom of high-level police corruption
As readers will be aware, the principal objective of this blog is to highlight issues most pertinent to Hollie Greig and related cases.
However, a shocking event occasionally occurs which seems indicative of a grave and corrosive problem this country now faces, which can ultimately be of no benefit to anyone in a society that purports to be civilised, The police can no longer be trusted. That must be obvious to anyone.
I have repeatedly described the utter failures of Grampian Police in relation to Hollie Greig, an accepted victim of serious sexual crime. However, it is not just in Scotland where the police are blatantly dishonest.
The result of the inquiry about the tragic events at Hillsborough is almost too shocking to contemplate, For 23 years, the relatives, friends of the victims and indeed all the citizens of Liverpool have had to endure the most disgraceful and unjustified slurs against them, made cynically and disgustingly in order to protect senior police officers and other high level public figures. I believe that this is a direct result of such individuals`attitude that allegiance to one another outweighs any sense of duty and obligation they may have to protect the public without fear or favour. Sadly this outlook from officials, usually paid handsomely out of the public purse, has become all too common throughout the United Kingdom.
Now let us re-examine a case in Wales, which almost defies belief and bears some resonance with official attitudes towards Hollie`s case.
Terry Grange was the Chief Constable of Dyfed and Powys. He was allowed to “resign” following the discovery of financial irregularities and an in appropriate affair, whilst in office, with an unnamed woman. These reasons, however, pale into insignificance when compared with a further matter. It was found that his personal relationship with an unnamed judge prevented the police from prosecuting or even interviewing this individual.against whom there was evidence of him having sex with under-age children, including a baby of eighteen months old!
More details about Grange can be found by reading an article by Nick Davies, writing in The Guardian in 2008. It hardly needs saying that no criminal charges were ever laid against either Grange or the judge.
Prior to exposure, Chief Constable Grange had publicly stated that no man should be classed as a paedophile for having sex with a 14 or 15 year girl. If you are shocked by that, make a note that at the same time, Grange was also the Association of Chief Police Officers`official spokesman on child
In a previous blog, I mentioned that Scottish Legal Aid boss Douglas Haggarty QC, a sex offender convicted over a case involving a teenage boy in Glasgow store toilet on a busy Saturday afternoon, was allowed to continue in his job.
So, awful though this type of high-level corruption is in Scotland, England and Wales are in no position to gloat.
What seems to be a common thread is that members of what may be described as a magic circle have become immune from any law, morality or social responsibility that the rest of us are supposed to abide by.
Such examples of continuous disgraceful behaviour and utter disregard for justice by senior public officials throughout our country simply cannot be allowed to go on unchecked.
THE GOVERNANCE OF SCOTLAND
Sometimes, given the extraordinarily draconian treatment that I have received from what is loosely described as the Scottish justice system, I am asked if I am hostile to Scotland. The answer is, not at all.
Scotland is a wonderful country and its people are overwhelmingly among the most decent one can find anywhere in the world. I cannot forget all those Scots who travelled from many parts of the country to support me at Stonehaven, throughout the many hearings and the trial itself. Nor can I forget the large proportion of the 2000 messages of support I received in prison that came from Scotland. Similarly, many of the 200 letters in support of my stance over the Hollie Greig case, which were presented at the trial to Sheriff Principal Bowen, came from Scottish people. Then there were the characteristically brave Scots who were prepared to risk arrest in demonstrating in Aberdeen for my release and the officers, governors and fellow prisoners who unfailingly supported me with kindness and consideration.
The tragedy of Scotland is that these fine people are governed, de facto, by a self-serving elite, mainly comprising bankers and powerful lawyers. With some honourable exceptions, the police, elected politicians and the media do as they`re told. Moreover, members of this ruling caste are much taken with having themselves awarded impressive titles, such as Lord this, Lady that, Sir this, Dame that, so-and-so QC, etc., in order to present a veneer of ill-deserved respectability to the outside world.
An illustration of how this can manifest itself may be read in my blog of 17th August, when I gave examples of how powerful and influential sex offenders are treated with staggering leniency, on the occasion of any of them actually being charged. Liam Gibson, Douglas Haggarty QC and Procurator Fiscal Stuart MacFarlane all avoided jail sentences. In the case of Douglas Haggarty, caught committing a sexual act with a teenage male prostitute in a busy Glasgow store, he is now the Technical Head of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
You could not make it up.
Brendan O`Neill, writing recently in the Telegraph, accurately described today`s Scotland as having the status of a banana republic. Government ministers in Westminster have been ready to promote regime change in countries like Libya and Syria. I would like to suggest that it would be of greater value to the people of the United Kingdom and to the Scots in particular, if they were to turn such attention to Scotland.
Devolved governance is one thing, devolved corruption is quite another.
TO AVOID ANY POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDINGS
As followers of the Hollie Greig case will know, all that has been asked is that an appropriately thorough police investigation into allegations of serious crime be conducted. Really, to a certain extent, personalities are largely irrelevant, as it is the persistent police failure to deal with the complaints that comes under scrutiny. As I have mentioned before, a proper inquiry would focus on all the evidence and facts and exonerate all or any of those who should not be found guilty.
However, I shall now quote from a letter from Grampian Police dated 24 September 2003, written by Detective inspector Iain Alley and contains the name of the then Chief Constable, Andrew Brown CBE QPM on the heading.
Here are some excerpts:-
On 20 May 2000, Hollie was examined by Dr Frances Kelly, retained by Grampian Police as a forensic medical practitioner. Dr Kelly found that there was evidence to indicate that Hollie had been sexually abused. A formal certificate was thus signed by Dr Kelly.
The investigating officer at the time and others who have conducted further enquiry since, were all of the opinion that Hollie had been the victim of penetrative sexual abuse at some point in the past. D.I. Alley then goes on to name one of the alleged perpetrators. He goes on to state that in his opinion, that due to Hollie being needed to be closely supervised.owing to her condition, the perperator (s) are likely to those who had regular, unsupervised access.
He goes on to say that it might be expected that the abuse went on for many years and finds that the period between 1985 and 2000 would not be unreasonable. Officers who have dealt with Hollie have taken the view that she was a truthful witness and an entirely innocent victim.
Of course, there is much more supporting expert witness evidence, but I emphasise this letter in particular because it came directly from Grampian Police.
So there we have it, Hollie is believed by the police and expert witnesses to be a victim of serious crimes and that she is both a truthful and competent witness.
Therefore, someone is responsible for those crimes.
So Hollie, a truthful witness, has named those she believes are culpable on various occasions, but
specifically, in my presence, to Grampian Police`s DC Lisa Evans on 8th September 2009.
At my trial, DC Evans confirmed on Oath that not one of those identified had even been questioned, despite previous expert witness statements supporting Hollie having also identified four of those named during the interview. It certainly does not necessarily make them guilty under the law, but there can surely be no excuse for the police not to question them and take other appropriate measures, such as examining their computers, as is normal police procedure when confronted with allegations of this kind.
I trust that what I have written, taken from an official police document, will be enough for those following the case to disregard any wild and unsubstantiated efforts by small groups, whose motivation can only be guessed at, to undermine Hollie and the validity of the facts. Sadly, included amongst those is the Sunday Herald, in its grossly distorted article of 17th June, which headlined the case as a “devastating fantasy”. Such irresponsible journalism does no credit to those responsible. Whatever opinions may be held on the various issues brought to light, the horrifying case of Hollie Greig is surely no fantasy.
I suggest that there can no rational nor credible reason exists to support the police`s inaction and there can be no justification for obstructing a proper, independent, public inquiry.
EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW – SCOTTISH STYLE
I was first arrested and charged in Aberdeen on 12th February 2010 at the beginning of my campaign as a prospective parliamentary candidate for the General Election in May of that year.
I had sought to highlight the failure of the police to conduct any meaningful investigation into serious allegations of sexual abuse made by a reliable witness, backed by much independent expert medical and psychlogical evidence and by the state itself, resulting in an award from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and to point out the danger that I had reason to believe may exist to the people of Aberdeen as a result of the aforesaid police failures.
As a result, two years later, I was given a one year prison sentence by a single sheriff in the Scottish Court.
At almost exactly the same time as my conviction, Liam Gibson, an oil industry executive, was arrested and charged after police had discovered some 50,000 images of child pornography on his computer, described as one of the worst cases of its kind in Scotland.
Mr Gibson did not go to prison.
Douglas Haggarty QC, then aged 58, a senior member of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, was arrested and charged when being found committing a sexual act with a 17-year-old male prostitute. The pair were discovered in the gents` toilets at the British Home Stores` St Enoch Centre branch in the heart of Glasgow. Moreover, the offenders were found on a busy Saturday afternoon when many families were shopping in the store.
Mr Haggarty did not go to prison.
In fact, he was even allowed to retain his position of public responsibility and trust in relation to funding at the Scottish Legal Aid Board.
Stuart MacFarlane, a senior Glasgow Procurator Fiscal, was charged after being found, in the city centre, committing an indecent act with a female prostitute. He also attacked and injured the two police officers who discovered him committing the criminal offence.
One might have thought that the attack on two police officers conducting their duties would in itself lead to a custodial sentence.
It did not, Mr MacFarlane did not go to prison.
Mr Haggarty and Mr MacFarlane were both defended by Paul McBride QC, who was found dead in March this year, aged 48, in a hotel room in Pakistan.
Is it unreasonable to suppose that sex offenders in Scotland with influential connections are treated with excessive lenience?
With regard to my complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the article of 17th June referring to the Hollie Greig campaign in the Sunday Herald, written by David Leask, its editor, Richard Walker, has still declined to respond to the bulk of the questions posed to him.
The formal investigation will now move on to be scrutinised under the terms of the Editor`s Code of Conduct and I have offered my full cooperation, including a willingness to appear before the Commission in person, if required to do so and supply further documentation if thought to be helpful towards the investigation reaching a conclusion.
Surprisingly, Mr Walker, nearly seven weeks after publication, has even failed to address an obvious factual blunder in the article, namely and I quote, “The CICA was told a doctor had examined Hollie and found evidence that she had had sex – although there was no evidence to suggest with whom.”
Irrespective of the merits of Holllie`s case, this is clearly an absurd statement for the Herald to make.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, by definition, does not make financial awards from public funds on the grounds of someone merely having sex with an unnamed individual.
However, it goes far deeper than this. At the time the article was published, the Sunday Herald had in its possession two of the documents that the CICA used to conclude that it accepted Hollie`s claims that she had indeed been a victim of criminal abuse. These were the ones written by Dr Eva Harding and Dr Jack Boyle. In no way did the contents of either of these expert advice documents correspond with the Sunday Herald`s statement. In fact, Dr Harding specifically named four of those identified by Hollie and in Dr Boyle`s report, he also referred to a previous sexual offence not involving Hollie committed by one of those four so named.
Finally, attention should be drawn to recent published statements, some of which were included in the article, by BBC Scotland`s investigation correspondent, Mark Daly, who has indicated that he believes that Hollie`s campaign is based on “a tissue of lies.”
However, I have in my possession a letter under BBC Scotland`s heading, dated 10th June 2009, sent immediately following the BBC`s abrupt decision not to continue with plans to broadcast a planned documentary. Two of the sentences included are as follows.
” We are convinced that Hollie was indeed abused and we do not dispute the police and professional evidence regarding what happened to her.”
“We are extremely sorry to disappoint you, as we know that it is important to you to feel that your story has been told and to highlight the injustice suffered by Hollie and others in similar situations.”
The letter was signed by Kathy Long (BBC Radio Scotland), Liam McDougall (Panorama) – and Mark Daly!
I will leave the readers to draw their own conclusions as to the reliability of any of Mr Daly`s subsequent statements.
Kim Ryley`s reign as Chief Executive of Shropshire Council, has come to an abrupt and ignominious end, something that supporters of Hollie Greig have been pressing for over the past two years.
When Shropshire Council began its cruel and unnecessary persecution of Hollie and Anne, including its shocking and pointless vandalism of their home and place of sanctuary on 3rd June 2010, Kim Ryley admitted to me that he took full responsibility for the actions taken.
Now he is gone.
Although the reasons for his sudden departure have not yet been revealed, he has presided over what must be an astronomical waste of public money in prosecuting Hollie`s case, much of it going on top London lawyers`fees and appearances before senior judges at the Royal Courts of Justice, all spent in a crude and disgraceful attempt to intimidate and silence two brave and remarkable women, moreover related to issues that had absolutely nothing to do with Shropshire or even England.
The authorities still refuse to disclose to the public the true financial costs of the Council`s actions, which are set to considerably escalate even further, whilst the county`s vital public services are being ruthlessly cut through apparent lack of funds, whilst it seems that no financial limit exists when it comes to using the people`s money to attack these ladies.
The people of Shropshire, particularly its most vulnerable citizens, now deserve a CEO of competence and compassion and they have a right to be informed of the truth of exactly how much of the public`s money has been squandered on this case, which also includes considerable costs undertaken by West Mercia Police at Shropshire Council`s behest.
Let us now hope that someone in authority in Shropshire has the integrity and decency to bring this fiasco to a swift end.
Finally, great credit should be given to those kind and brave people who have come out to support Hollie and Anne in London when facing the trauma inflicted upon them by Shropshire Council in forcing them to appear before the hostile and secret “Family” Courts.
I have received a number of requests about the state of the current Press Complaints Commission investigation into the Sunday Herald`s article of 17th June 2012, about which I complained had been grossly unbalanced and in some cases, factually inaccurate. In my view, the article was an extraordinarily biased piece of journalism published, it appeared, with the overriding objective of undermining the credibility of Hollie Greig and those who have loyally supported her quest for justice.
After a considerable period of waiting, the editor, Richard Walker, has eventually provided an answer to the PCC that in no way can be considered to have addressed most of the significant points made in my complaint. The article in question, written by David Leask, quite blatantly ignored the considerable medical, psychological and other expert witness evidence provided. The headline itself used the words devastating fantasy to describe Hollie`s allegations and the overwhelming emphasis of the whole article was to find ways with which to support this leading statement. Whatever views one might hold on the various aspects of the case, under no circumstances could Hollie`s allegations be honestly described as fantasy, given the unchallenged supporting expert evidence, backed by the fact that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority had been sufficiently convinced by the weight of the said evidence that Hollie had indeed been the victim of serious crime, by awarding her £13,500 from public funds.
I do not propose to go into further detail here, as I have been invited to prepare a response to the PCC about Mr Walker`s belated attempt at an explanation, so it is only fair to allow the PCC investigators the opportunity of assessing the information when it has been presented to them.
This is a brief blog to thank everyone who provided such marvellous support whilst I was imprisoned in Aberdeen.
I was touched by the overwhelming kindness of so many people around the world who wrote to me and the compassion displayed especially towards Hollie Greig and those who, like her, have suffered similar ordeals.
To those of you who came to demonstrate on my behalf outside the jail and in the city of Aberdeen, I cannot find the words to adequately express my deepest appreciation. The strength of the support was felt not only by me, but by the whole prison, it seemed.
Many of you were concerned about my treatment in prison, but I must say that I was looked after with the utmost humanity and consideration by the officers, governors and perhaps most importantly of all, my fellow prisoners, who were unfailingly kind to me. Contrary to what is sometimes thought, there is a lot of goodness within prison walls and I am convinced by my own experience that most of the people are certainly not fundamentally bad by any means. Often, they are paying dearly for perhaps one serious mistake or having the misfortune of suffering from a difficult background.
I also came away with the utmost admiration for the officers at HMP Aberdeen, who conduct their difficult and often dangerous duties with patience, compassion and professionalism.
There are many ongoing legal, political and humanitarian issues currently taking place behind the scenes in connection with Hollie`s case, including the transparent need for a properly constituted inquiry and my own legal efforts to have my conviction quashed. I believe that my human rights have already been breached on numerous occasions by the Scottish justice system, including the latest refusal of the High Court to even allow me to appeal. All this will take time, but these unsatisfactory matters are being and will be dealt with.
Finally, I must stress that this is the only blog that is under my control. There are many sites which express sympathy and support for the plight of Hollie, but I have absolutely no control or direct influence on anything that is published on any other site. I discovered after my release that my former site, holliedemandsjustice Robert Green`s blog had been rendered inoperable whilst I was imprisoned and that will never be used by me again.
Your generosity of spirit and kindness was a great strength to me in prison and to my family and I shall not forget it.
Thursday, 19 September 2013
ANGIOLINI REFUSES OFFER TO HELP HOLLIE
At the end of the last hearing over Elish Angiolini`s defamation action against me , on 1st May, her legal representatives Roddy Dunlop QC and solicitor Fred Tyler approached me with an offer to reach an agreement. Angiolini believes that I have been unfair in criticising her by claiming that she has been instrumental in covering up the rape of Hollie Greig. It should be pointed out that whilst in office as Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini was most vociferous about her commitment to protect victims of rape.
Therefore, I sent all the detailed expert witness statements supporting Hollie`s allegations to Mr Tyler along with the Commissioner`s evidence confirming that Grampian Police had withheld two of these crucial supporting medical documents from the Procurator Fiscal. It is certain from the evidence provided by experts with impeccable credentials that Hollie has been the victim of rape and that she has identified her attackers and indeed, their views have been accepted by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in granting Hollie a financial award.
My offer, which, in the circumstances, I regard as an extremely generous and fair one, was for Angiolini to be prepared to publicly call for a proper and adequate investigation to take place into Hollie`s case. In return, I would willingly cease criticising Angiolini in public and would in fact be willing to cooperate with her in trying to ensure that such an investigation is correctly undertaken, in an effort for justice to be served and to protect Scottish children and the disabled from sexual abuse.
I have taken the position that what has happened in the past, relating to my imprisonment and Angiolini`s concern about her reputation, count for very little in comparison to the horrific ordeals suffered by Hollie and probably other children and the disabled.
I have asked nothing for myself other than the right to continue to contest against my conviction and to offer support to Rusty (Tim Rustige) who has also been treated in an extraordinarily unjust and disproportionate manner.
Elish Angiolini, self -proclaimed protector of rape victims, has declined, without explanation, the opportunity to come to the aid of such a victim, disabled and defenceless.
The next hearing in this case is to take place in Edinburgh on 18th October.
Rusty`s next hearing, an interim one at which he need not attend, is scheduled for 8th October at Aberdeen. His trial is set to take place on 4th and 5th November. Sylvia Major, Elish Angiolini and Win Dragon are set to come before the Court. I understand that there is also the prospect of Hollie`s father and brother being called. Given the weight of evidence provided by Dr Eva Harding, Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Frances Kelly, Dr Paul Carter and Detective Inspector Iain Alley and other police officers, some very interesting cross-examinations are likely to take place.
Meanwhile, one person who is definitely not going to jail is Stuart MacFarlane, whom I have mentioned in previous posts. Mr MacFarlane is a former Procurator Fiscal and a deputy to Elish Angiolini. His latest trial has been reported in the 18th September editions of the Scottish Express and the Daily Record. He was found to have been in possession of 15,000 computer images, described as “horrifying”, including sexual acts between adults, children and animals. Of course, for a magic circle member like Mr MacFarlane, this was not deemed serious enough to merit a custodial sentence.
The two articles, though no doubt correctly interpreting public sentiments, do not mention that in 2006, Macfarlane was found performing a sexual act in public with a female prostitute, He went on to attack the two police officers who arrested him, causing injuries that had to be treated in hospital.
One would have thought that in any country that regarded itself to be civilised, such criminal conduct would invariably result in a prison sentence. But, no, MacFarlane, now a violent double sex offender, has powerful friends. He did not go to prison. It was deemed by Elish Angiolini`s Crown Office, “not to be in the public interest” to jail him, leaving him free to re-offend.
It was decided, however, by Angiolini, to be in the public interest for Rusty and me to be imprisoned.
It may reasonably be asked exactly who are these members of the public in whose interests Angiolini has purported to act?
Posted by Robert Green at 18:26
ANGIOLINI`S RECORD ON HUMAN RIGHTS EXPOSED
Ian Hamilton QC, is a widely admired figure in Scotland and a staunch supporter of independence.
On 6th July 2011, he was interviewed by BBC Newsnight and described Scotland`s record on human rights as appalling. For this shocking state of affairs, he primarily blamed Elish Angiolini, followed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Mr Hamilton goes on to strongly condemn them over the Peter Cadder case, by which approximately 76,000 people were unsafely convicted.
I was one of those, denied my human rights, in direct contradiction of Scotland`s own legal commitments, by DS Drummond and DC Crowder on 12th February 2010, when they refused me the legal representation to which I was entitled when I was charged.
Another glaring example of Angiolini`s and MacAskill`s utter contempt for fundamental human rights lay in the circumstances connected with the false conviction and imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi in the notorious Lockerbie case.
Mr Hamilton`s interview can be seen thus:-
Many observers who have been following the Hollie Greig case are at a loss to understand why the Scottish mainstream media barely ever mentions the issue, even when connected criminal cases are involved, such as those of Tim Rustige (Rusty) and mine. The police officers from Operation Yewtree seemed puzzled that at the height of the Jimmy Savile scandal that no mention or photographs at all were published in the Scottish media when his cottage in Glencoe was prominently daubed “Justice for Hollie Greig”.
One possible explanation for the existence of this blanket of secrecy may lie in the person of Peter Watson, senior partner of solicitors Levy & McRae. The firm claims to specialise in managing unwelcome publicity affecting its clients. It states that “we aim to keep our clients off the front page”. This is certainly no idle boast. It is clearly very successful in that regard.
Professor Watson acts for Elish Angiolini and personally represents First Minister Alex Salmond. Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is a former colleague when working as a solicitor at Levy & McRae. When Chief Constable Sir Stephen House was head of Strathclyde Police, Levy & McRae represented the Police Federation of that force. Now Sir Stephen leads Police Scotland, Levy & McRae now represent the Federation covering the entire country. The firm also acts for the Scottish Prison Officers Association. Professor Watson even acts as a part-time sheriff.
Levy & McRae`s power and influence does not end there, by any means.
Professor Watson is a key advisor to Alex Salmond in his efforts to further control the Scottish media. The firm represents a good part of the media, including Scottish TV, the Daily Record, Herald Scotland and others. In fact, Levy & McRae states that it represents “the biggest names in print and broadcast media”. Is it any surprise then that issues damaging to Elish Angiolini, such as the Hollie Greig case, may never see the light of day?
It must be said that Levy & McRae has received many glowing accolades from satisfied clients and in 2008, Peter Watson, described as “brilliant”, was voted Solicitor of the Year.
All this is, no doubt, wonderful for Professor Watson and for Levy & McRae, but could any of these wide-ranging spheres of influence constitute potential conflicts of interest in the way that Scotland is governed, possible effects on policing, the justice system and matters of genuine public interest being concealed from the people of Scotland?
If I have omitted any other remaining powerful organisations or individuals in Scotland that Levy & McRae represent, I sincerely apologise.
Saturday, 19 October 2013
ANGIOLINI – EDINBURGH
Thank you all for your wonderful support yet again and to the gallant Scottish, English and Irish people who made the journey to the Court of Session. Also, I would like to thank all of you who sent messages of support. It means a lot to me and I`m sure it does to Hollie and her devoted mother who has had to endure so much. Thanks also to those who spread the word, including the televised messages put out by UK Column Live.
Dame Elish Angiolini, on the other hand, was conspicuous by her absence, as usual.
Roddy Dunlop QC, of Axiom Advocates, requested that Lord Bannatyne issue a perpetual interdict on me to prevent me criticising the great Dame. Of course, I could not defend this proposition on equitable grounds, being denied the level of legal representation to which I am entitled. In previous hearings, Lords Glennie and Stewart have made this point perfectly clear, but Lord Bannatyne disagreed with his fellow Lordships, which poses yet another interesting question for the Scottish legal establishment.
Lord Bannatyne did reserve judgement, but I do not think he should have even considered such a motion by the pursuer with my being deprived of adequate means of defence. Mr Dunlop`s legal points were, of course, unintelligible to me.
However, I was permitted to read out a copy of my letter of 12th September 2013 to the Court of Session. This was said in open court with no restrictions, so its contents can be reported on freely.
I will not go through the whole letter, which will be published, but here are some of the most salient points.
Excerpts included my disappointment that Angiolini had refused my offer to cooperate in calling for a proper and adequate investigation into the Hollie Greig case. Interestingly, during his submission, Mr Dunlop did refer to all right-thinking people being opposed to the sexual abuse of children, but perhaps wisely, did not specifically include his client among that number.
I was able to list the severe public condemnations of Angiolini by Professor Robert Black QC, Ian Hamilton QC in his BBC interview, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Hope of the Supreme Court, amongst others. I believe there is a valid argument for submitting that Angiolini`s record as Lord Advocate was so appalling that it would be difficult for anyone to defame her in that regard.
I went on to describe Angiolini, on 8th September 2009, publicly criticising Mr Al-Megrahi`s attempt to clear his name as being contemptible. It was actually Angiolini who displayed contempt, both for the law of Scotland and for the basic human rights of a dying man, falsely imprisoned far from his home and family. She knew at that time that his conviction was unsound, yet was prepared to lie to the whole world, presumably to protect the interests of the CIA. It is quite possible that Angiolini knows the true identities of those who were responsible for the Lockerbie bomb and that may offer a possible indication of why the Scottish establishment will go to such extraordinary lengths to protect and cosset her. It may well be that she knows too much.
I then referred to the information that Angiolini had even tried to deceive her own legal team in this particular case, as I discovered from Mr Dunlop and Balfour & Manson`s Mr Tyler after the 1st May hearing. She had led them to believe that she had not been cited as a defence witness at my trial, a blatant untruth. She was indeed cited by my Counsel, Andy Lamb QC to appear, but refused to be cross-examined under oath, If she had nothing to hide, why avoid being questioned in open court.
Moving on, I was able to present details from expert witness statements, including that of Dr Eva Harding, one of those accepted by the CICA for Hollie to be granted an award. It was also one of the documents concealed from the Prosecutor by Grampian Police. I said that Dr Harding`s findings concluded unequivocally that Hollie`s father and brother, Denis Charles Mackie and Greg Mackie, had sexually abused her from childhood and that she was probably abused by others who had access to her. Among those named was a cousin of Denis Mackie, Sylvia Major and her police officer husband, who was Terry Major, Chief Fingerprint Officer for Grampian Police. Is it any wonder that rogue elements within the police force did not want the Prosecutor to see this evidence?
Of course, despite the police holding this overwhelming supporting evidence, not one of the individuals named by Hollie to the police in my presence in September 2009 was so much as questioned.
Although I did not discuss this at the hearing, Alex Salmond is up to his neck in the Hollie Greig cover up.
The Firm`s article of 11th July 2011 is headed “First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations”. It highlights Mr Salmond`s failure to answer a FOI request made to him of 28th January 2011, which eventually led to the entire SNP government coming within 24 hours of being held in contempt of court. It appears that Mr Salmond was initially trying to give the impression that he knew nothing about Hollie Greig, but The Firm pointed out that the Crown office`s Andrew McIntyre, in a letter to me of 23rd July 2009, had referred to an email that I had sent to the First Minister on 20th June that year. I also hold a copy of a letter dated 2nd October 2007 to Anne Greig from Julie Muir, of his constituency office, in which she states “Mr Salmond has asked me to thank you for your letter and to reply”.
That is not all.
On 1st May 2011, in Perth, I personally handed over the expert witness documents to Mr Salmond, explaining briefly what they contained. He took them and said “I`ll take a look at them”.
There is an important event taking place in September 2014 to resolve the question of Scottish independence. If Alex Salmond does not think that the unchecked sexual abuse of Scottish children and the disabled by paedophile gangs is sufficiently important as to warrant his attention, then he should say so- publicly!
The SNP`s office number is 0131 525 8900, if you would like to know the First Minister`s views on this specific topic are and an explanation for his conduct over the Hollie Greig case.
Finally, thanks must go to Tim Rustige`s MP, Graham Brady. After he had contacted the Prime Minister, having been given full details of Hollie`s case, a letter to Mr Brady from 10 Downing St states “The Prime Minister has asked for a Minister in the Home office to reply to you directly”. The letter also refers to the Prime Minister`s awareness of the request for a Parliamentary level National Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse coverups.
Perhaps this may be a tangible official step towards untangling and exposing the corruption involved in the horrific case of Hollie Greig and protecting others from such ordeals.
Thank you all again for staying with us throughout this battle for justice.
Posted by Robert Green
From Time to Time
By Robert Green – Robert Green’s Blog –
From time to time, supporters of Hollie`s case draw my attention to a bizarre little knot of people who call themselves the Hollie Greig Hoax Group, in total denial of the powerful supportive documentary evidence that has often been published. Unsurprisingly, the group is backed by Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae, who is the personal lawyer for Alex Salmond and Elish Angiolini, amongst other Scottish luminaries. These individuals seem to think it acceptable to publicly smear a disabled multiple rape victim who they know is not able to defend herself. Having gone through some of the most horrific and disgusting ordeals imaginable, Hollie is still pursued by this vociferous but fundamentally cruel and cowardly little group.
I get attacked also by them, but at least I am able to stand up for myself. The attacks on me are actually diversionary, as my opinion of Hollie`s case actually counts for very little. I was not a witness to the crimes, have no medical, psychological or relevant legal expertise and knew nothing of Hollie until a group of patriotic Scots asked me to help Hollie and her mother in 2008. My only real value as a witness at all is that I was present on 8th September 2009 when Hollie made her harrowing three and a half hour statement about her ordeals and those responsible to DC Lisa Jane Evans of Grampian Police, DC Evans later admitted on oath in court that not one of those named had even been so much as questioned – some police investigation!
The opinions that do count and on which I have overwhelmingly relied are those of independent and respected professionals, none of whom are known to me personally. It is already a fact that the state has also accepted the weight and validity of the evidence by making a financial award through the CICA, regarding Hollie as a genuine victim of sexual abuse.
Now, I propose to remind you of some excerpts taken from the mass of expert witness evidence in support of Hollie`s claims.
Dr Eva Harding stated that “it is undoubtedly the case that Hollie`s father and brother have sexually abused her over a long period from childhood and probably by others who had access to her”.
Dr Jack Boyle wrote that “Hollie is truthful and is describing sexual abuse”.
Detective Inspector Iain Alley of Grampian Police reported as follows ,“The investigating officer and others who have conducted further enquiry since were all of the opinion that she had been the victim of penetrative sexual abuse and that she named her father, Denis Mackie as the perpetrator. There is a sufficiency of evidence to accept, on the balance of probability, that Hollie was sexually abused and that included penetration of her private parts. Given that Hollie, because of her difficulties, has been closely supervised throughout her life, the perpetrator is most likely to have been someone close to her who had regular unsupervised access. She named her father as responsible.
Officers who have dealt with Hollie have taken the view that she was a truthful witness and an entirely innocent victim”.
There is, of course, much more supportive evidence from a variety of experts in similar vein.
Even Peter Anderson, the senior partner of Denis Mackie`s own solicitors, Simpson & Marwick, writes “it may well be the case that Hollie Greig has been sexually abused by her father and brother”.
In the midst of my usual criticisms of Scotland`s politicians and legal profession, it is surely right to praise the integrity of Mr Peter Anderson. There cannot be many solicitors anywhere who would express the view to the effect that their own client is probably guilty of a serious sexual offence against a child. Other solicitors and Mr Salmond please take note. Mr Anderson`s altruism is a credit to Scotland.
Coincidentally, Mr Anderson also represents Sheriff Graham Buchanan.
The First Minister, Alex Salmond, has been in possession of all these documents for some time now and his office promised a reply to me in a letter dated 18 October 2013, written by Mr David Woods. I am still waiting, although I have invited him to comment on any of the expert evidence with which he may choose to disagree, as he was prepared to break the law twice when challenged by the Information Commissioner to explain his inaction and evasiveness over the Hollie Greig abuse case.
The staggering multiple crimes committed by Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith were never investigated whilst the pair of them were alive. There is a reason for this. Dead men cannot speak. Without doubt, naming their circle of accomplices would have rocked the British establishment to its foundations.
Hence, the problem now faced by the Scottish establishment is that Denis Mackie remains alive and at large. Following Hollie`s account of September 2009, why on earth was Mackie not questioned and his computer seized, standard police procedure in such cases?
It is surely not unreasonable to suggest that the discovery of Denis Mackie`s list of “contacts” would prove very damaging to the Scottish hierarchy. Is there any other reason for the Scottish government`s extraordinary and continuing efforts to close the case down at all costs?
Why is Alex Salmond prepared to break his own country`s laws rather than instigate a proper inquiry into the multiple rapes of a disabled girl in a neighbouring constituency to his own?
Finally, let me make it perfectly clear that the fundamental purpose of the Hollie Greig campaign is to ensure that such an appropriate inquiry takes place to compensate for past police failings, in the public interest. It is not to prejudge. Even Denis and Greg Mackie are entitled to be treated with a level of justice consistently denied by the Scottish state to Hollie.
Given the strength of the evidence, who could honestly argue against such a simple request?
PUBLISHED: 07:00 07 January 2020
The woman, who asked to be known as Pam, looked after dozens of youngsters from babyhood to age 10 between 1975 and 1999.
In the early 1990s she tried to adopt one of her charges, a young girl with learning difficulties who had been in her care for years.
Her pre-adoption assessment was handled by Islington social worker Jim Wroe, who was later named as having been instrumental in an international “cash for babies” scandal.
At the time, Islington Council head of children’s services Hannah Miller incorrectly told the press Mr Wroe “had absolutely nothing to do with adoption services in this borough”.
But Pam knew he did – and made a formal complaint about what had been said.
For its part Islington Council recently told the Gazette that safeguarding policies had been “transformed” since the 1990s and protecting children from harm is now the top priority.
“I felt I was cold-shouldered,” Pam told the Gazette, “and treated as a pain in the backside.
“After reading the statement saying Jim Wroe had nothing to do with adoption in Islington, I was disgusted and decided to complain.
“I said an incorrect public statement had been made and I could prove it.”
An investigator was brought in by LBI but left post after two years, and the council never publicly corrected the statement. In 1998 an independent social worker tasked with reviewing the complaint said the lack of a response “could result in a finding of maladministration” if brought to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Mr Wroe had contacted Pam in August 1993 on being asked to prepare a home study report as part of her application.
They were in contact for several years but, according to Pam’s diary notes, he told her in July 1995 that he would not be able to manage her case anymore.
In 1996 he was named in the BBC’s The Cook Report as a key link in a “mail-order baby business”.
According to reports at the time Mr Wroe had approved some adoption applications with false information in them, including one bearing the name of a convicted child molester.
He was paid between £500 and £750 a time by families in the UK looking to adopt babies from overseas, it was alleged, to prepare reports for the Home Office and Guatemalan authorities in London but did not investigate all of them properly, meaning incorrect information went unchecked.
Reporters said they had discovered a “shocking lack of safeguards” that allowed an organised “racket” to flourish.
Mr Wroe said at the time: “We can’t check everything. I acted in good faith.”
He was sacked by Islington in January 1997 and his later employment tribunal claim and appeal were struck out.
Pam said the reports alarmed her because: “I could have been anyone”.
After Mr Wroe was dismissed she was never permitted to adopt the youngster, who was moved to a care home.
“She really was adorable,” Pam said. “She was fantastic and happy.
“She couldn’t walk or communicate properly, but could communicate with us through touch and through music. She understood us and we understood her.”
The press revelations came in the wake of the publication of The White Report in 1995 on horrific physical and sexual abuse in Islington’s care homes.
The review had recommended the council “urgently” strengthen its HR practices.
Liz Davies, who heads the Islington Survivors Network, said: “The Cook report on Jim Wroe was followed by an Islington investigation but ISN have not seen even a summary of this other than a statement that Wroe had not been involved in adoption work in Islington. We now know this was untrue.
“We do not even know if he was allowed to continue to practice social work or if anyone ever bothered to monitor his work.
“In August 2017, because ISN remained concerned, I brought the Cook Report to the attention of the responsible LBI officer.
“It is so important for former staff to come forward to ISN with concerns. Their evidence is essential for the protection of children.”
The most recent Ofsted report for Islington’s services for vulnerable children rated it Good, with management and governance rated Outstanding.
An Islington Council spokesman said: “In the 24 years following the publication of the White Report there have been huge changes in Islington.
“The council strongly believes any new allegations of crime or abuse should be reported to the police.”
Jim Wroe and Hannah Miller did not respond to a request for comment.
If you value what this story gives you, please consider supporting the Islington Gazette. Click the link in the orange box above for details.