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.


  1. On the subject of crooked, corrupt officials and the likes of Stephen House and First Minister Alex ‘Porky Pict’ Salmond, and Elish Angiolini’s failures viz the Skye tolls fraud besides, let us not forget that as Solicitor General she was guilty of purposefully lying to Fergus Ewing MSP in 2005 over the surveillance of the celebrated Scots activist Wille MacRae MSP at the time of his 1985 murder (read ‘assassination’) – and in striking parallel to the Hollie Greig sexual abuse scandal, to justify this refusal, publicly announced that no ‘cold case’ inquiry would be initiated as she was personally satisfied that a thorough investigation into the ‘suicide’ had been carried out.


  2. Is taking your personal belongings and not returning them theft?

    Have these loons not heard of the Data Protection Act or is this yet another example of the law of the land that they are above?

    I wonder if the Judge will view this abuse of the law as a contempt of court offence, especially as they are Officers of the Court?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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