> To:
> Subject: Article by David Leask about Hollie Greig
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:29:09 +0000
> Dear Mr Walker,
> I would like to express my disappointment in David Leask`s article in the
> Sunday Herald. I believe that the article is grossly unbalanced and in a few
> cases, factually inaccurate.
> As far as the one of the factual errors is concerned, the article states
> that I “was brought in while campaigning as a candidate in the 2010 General
> Election, despite being effectively banned from entering Aberdeenshire”.
> This is nonsense. I was banned on 15th February 2010 in relation to my bail
> conditions following my initial arrest on 12th February, as I was about to
> open my campaign. No such ban existed at that time.
> David Leask states that the CICA payment made to Hollie Greig was a result
> of one doctor saying she was having sex without anyone being named. The
> Criminal Injuries Compensation Board do not allocate public funds to
> individuals on the basis of them having sex with unknown partners. This
> would appear initially to be journalism at its sloppiest, but it is worse
> that that.
> David Leask has been dishonest.
> He has the documents that were used to claim the award, one from Dr Jack
> Boyle, who clearly stated that he believed Hollie had been sexually abused.
> Dr Boyle also refers to one of those named by Hollie as being involved in a
> previous sexual offence. The other key document is that of Dr Eva Harding,
> who not only states unequivocally that two of those named had sexually
> abused Hollie, but also states that she was “probably abused by others who
> had access to her.” Two further individuals are named in the report among
> those probables that the police did not even bother to interview. David
> Leask knew this, yet omitted it from his article. Given the gravity of the
> main issue, that must constitute a deplorable lack of journalistic integrity
> on his part. I trust that having made you aware of this, you may come to
> share my opinion.
> Mr Leask also implies that Anne Greig did not cooperate, giving the false
> impresion that she had something to hide. Nothing could be further from the
> truth. When I first spoke to Mr Leask on Friday afternoon, he was aware of
> the legal restrictions placed upon Anne, but wanted her to telephone him,
> with a deadline of the same night. I explained that due to the restrictions,
> it would be most unwise for Anne to speak to him without her receiving
> professional advice. In the circumstances, I suggested that he put his
> questions to her in writing. Mr Leask failed to cooperate with this entirely
> reasonable request.
> As all those concerned in attempting to discredit Hollie`s claims must
> know, both Anne and I are currently both under strict legal constraints and
> I find it distasteful that after three years of this case being in the
> public domain, you have chosen to publish allegations at the very time you
> know that any of our responses must be limited.
> The final part of my letter is not based on hearsay but fact and I am not
> about to name any of the individuals identified by Hollie.
> On 8th September 2009, I was present at Shrewsbury when Hollie was
> formally interviewed by DC Lisa Evans of Grampian Police. During the course
> of the interview, which lasted three and a half hours,  Hollie clearly
> identified a number of individuals whom she alleged had committed serious
> criminal acts against her, as well as describing locations. Not only were
> the four named in Dr Harding`s letter so accused, but two others that had
> direct access to children due to their professional status.
> In support of the allegations that she had been the victim of such crimes
> were documents already known to Grampian Police from a number of expert
> medical and psychological
> witnesses with impeccable credentials. These were Dr Paul Carter, the
> school medical officer, Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Eva Harding, Ruth Beckmann of the
> Down`s Syndrome Association and Dr Frances Kelly, the last-named being
> Grampian Police`s own medical forensic expert. Grampian Police`s D.I. Iain
> Alley had also testified to Hollie`s competence and integrity. Moreover, as
> mentioned previously, the state had been sufficiently convinced by the
> weight of evidence as to award Hollie £13,500 through the Criminal Injuries
> Compensation Authority for her suffering as the result of the criminal acts
> committed against her.
> At my trial, it was established by DC Lisa Evans on Oath that Grampian
> Police had not interviewed a single person so named by Hollie.
> Still, current Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland has been repeating the
> mantra “insufficient evidence”, when facing formal questions from the
> Secretary of State for Scotland. Transparently, Grampian Police, by its own
> sworn admission, had not made the slightest attempt to investigate these
> grave complaints. Mr Mulholland seems to think that not interviewing a
> single person named in detail by an accepted truthful and competent witness,
> supported by copious expert witness evidence and a clear financial
> acceptance by the state that her allegations were likely to be true,
> constitutes a “thorough police investigation”.
> On the basis of the facts placed before you, one might well conclude that
> the Lord Advocate`s remarks are not only an insult to intelligence, but a
> gross insult to Hollie Greig, undoubtedly a defenceless disabled victim of
> horrific crimes, whoever the perpetrator(s) may be.
> My belief in Hollie Greig`s statements are not and have never been, based
> on guesswork or emotion. I believe her because all the experts who have
> interviewed her say she is entirely truthful, due to a large extent to the
> condition of Down`s Syndrome. It is thus difficult to understand the
> rationale or motive of anyone who chooses not to accept her statements,
> whether they have met her or not.
> On a personal note, the interview I heard at Shrewsbury was the most
> harrowing of my life. To hear a young woman spending three and a half hours
> unaided reliving the horrific ordeals of systematic rape and worse is
> heartrending beyond belief. To all those reading this, if you had heard what
> I had heard, I doubt if any of you would find it in your heart to be cruel
> to this incredibly gallant young lady.
> I would like you to publish the details of this letter, in a gesture of
> goodwill, fairness and integrity to all concerned. No one would doubt the
> right of anyone who believes themselves innocent to defend themselves, but
> if anyone feels unfairly treated, the finger should be pointed in the
> direction of Grampian Police. If they had carried out a proper investigation
> and for any reason, exonerated any of those named, it would have been both
> irresponsible and unfair to conduct such a campaign as we have witnessed. If
> Hollie is telling the truth, as the experts say she is, then logically the
> probability must exist that at least some of those named are likely to
> continue to be a danger to the most vulnerable citizens  All we have asked
> is for the police to do their duty. They have repeatedly failed miserably to
> do so.
> A full inquiry would clarify and satisfy everyone, I would have thought.
> Yours sincerely,
> Robert Green

4 May 2014 – 8:47am | posted by Jessica Davies | 2 comments

Sunday Herald becomes first newspaper to openly back Scottish independence

Sunday Herald becomes first newspaper to openly back Scottish independence Sunday Herald becomes first newspaper to openly back Scottish
The Sunday Herald has publicly shown its support for voting yes in the referendum on Scottish Independence on 18 September.
The newspaper has run with the front page: “Sunday Herald says Yes”, designed by the artist and writer Alistair Gray – also known to support independence.
The headline of the article read: “The prize is a better country. It is as simple as that: why the Sunday Herald supports a Yes vote.”
In its editorial, the Sunday Herald stated: No-one should find the decision easy. There is nothing simple, clean, or clinical about ending a union that has endured for better than three centuries. Nevertheless, having considered the arguments, the Sunday Herald sincerely and emphatically believes that the best outcome is a vote for independence.
“We state our opinion not in an attempt to persuade our readers. That would be presumptuous and arrogant. We are well aware that there is good reason to assume the vote will be close. However, we are determined, as the debate enters its final, feverish stages, when emotions will doubtless run high, to make our position clear.”
It continued: “We believe independence offers Scotland an historic opportunity to choose the kind of country that might allow its people to prosper. Decisions affecting our lives will be made on our doorstep, by the people who live here. By us. A vote for independence says that a small country is not helpless in a big, troubling world.”
The article also stated that its position is not necessarily the position of the papers owners the Herald and Times Group, which includes sister titles the daily Herald and the Evening Times, but that the publisher has given its editors the freedom to decide on their own newspapers’ position.
It cited a quote from Tim Blott, managing director of the Herald and Times group, who has said: “Our policy is to give individual editors the freedom to decide their own newspaper’s position on this hugely important constitutional issue but our own official company stance will remain non-political and neutral in the independence debate.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *