This blog mainly covers and archives some of the material surrounding the Hollie Greig case, and explores my own, properly researched position as a legitimate media professional who has spent over five years actually working to get to the truth of it... It's main purpose is to act as a public record of my position on the case. It's not a discussion forum, I'm not here to entertain or give the oxygen of publicity to nutters... You don't like them apples? - I don't care.

If you have relevant information to provide, email it! If you have something rational to say I'll read, consider and may even respond... Possibly directly, perhaps here through the blog.

On the other hand - If you're a headcase your email will be deleted by an office junior and your address blocked - I don't suffer fools at all. Abusive rubbish is passed straight to the Police.

Unlike others, this blog is not purposed to distract attention away from the Hollie Grieg case or obfuscate the issues surrounding child sexual abuse generally... Nor am I here to promote vapid conspiracy theories! - I'm not begging for cash, there is no mechanism for you to donate money to me. There are no books or DVDs you can buy from me on the Hollie Greig case... Or for that matter any similar case...

In short, your approval of me or what I write is of no relevance or interest to me... I don't require your attention, I don't want your money and I have nothing - except reality - to promote here.

My only interest is in the truth of the case, and that does seem to scare certain people - mainly criminals and perverts - out of their wits... What have they got to hide?

Saturday, 28 February 2015

9. First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations?



9. First Minister in missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations?


The old and worn-out 'Hollie Greig missing records' lie...  Robert Green – and his cohorts – would like to mislead you into believing that Alex Salmond, whilst in office as First Minister, hid some material information relating to the Hollie Greig case… But that’s just not true  

This is actually one of the biggest and most-often repeated lies surrounding the Hollie Greig case. Mostly served by a dollop of journalistically incompetent tripe from legal trade magazine 'The Firm' which knows (or should know) damned-well that no Scottish Minister - not even the First Minister - can interfere with individual issues of criminal justice in Scotland.

The real story?

On the 20th of June 2009 Robert Green emailed the First Minister’s office ‘raising his concerns about the Hollie Greig case.  But of course the Lord Advocate is the sole authority in Scotland over criminal cases – 'outranking' any other minister in that respect.  Salmond could not - was not legally allowed to - intervene or interfere with the administration of justice even if he wanted. Consequently, Green’s enquiry was simply passed straight to the Crown Office (COPFS) which replied to him on the 23rd of July 2009…  Perfectly standard procedure.

Despite having got a response to his email,  Green wrote again to the First Minister's Office on the 27th of July, 2nd and 9th of August and the 9th and 18th of September 2009... In other words, Robert Green was making an absolute bloody pest of himself...  

Now, nothing - despite the non-educated fantasies of people like the ignorant and rudderless Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy - absolutely nothing changes the cold hard FACT that the First Minister cannot interfere with the routine administration of justice in Scotland; they must and will defer any enquiry to the Crown Office...  And one can certainly sense the frustration in the two-page letter you see below which was the COPFS' final response to Green's campaign of letter-writing...

Please note carefully exactly what the Crown Office are replying to here - among other things, Green's (multiple) letters to the First Minister...


This letter is dated November 17th 2009...   It's from John Logue, the head of Policy at the COPFS and its closing sentences are quite clear.  

The COPFS - which, let's remember (and yes, I'm labouring the point) is the final word on these matters and in essence 'outranks' the First Minister's office when it comes to matters of Scottish Jutice - has made it clear it has answered Robert Green's concerns, stated its position, and makes it very clear that it won't be wasting its time with him again...

So what of these 'missing records'?  

It looks as if whatever snowed-under clerk dealt with the original email has simply forwarded it to the COPFS…  They didn’t log it, they didn’t keep a record, and that was wrong...  It was wrong, but basically what we’re obviously talking about here is a minor clerical error that has absolutely no material impact of any kind on anything…

For reasons best known to himself (and he has been rather coy about this) Robert Green wrote again to the First Minister’s office on the 28th of January 2011 – according to legal trade magzine ‘The Firm’ he posed “six questions into the manner of the investigation and handling of the case”…  He was ignored.

Now; I’m not about to defend that for a moment… 

In fact I have to say that too often injelitant little pencils-necks forget they are the servants and the public are the masters.  And though Green no-doubt was by this time very well known as a crackpot conspiracy theorist and a bloody nuisance – he at least deserved the courtesy of an answer; even if it was only to tell him to ‘eff off’…

But let's remember here that on the 17th of November 2009 the COPFS had quite clearly told Green it would not be answering any more of his letters, and this was stated in the context of a letter that also embraced correspondence to the First Minister's office... One theory is that the junior pen-pusher that dealt with Green’s letter in January 2011 knew his name as a conspiracy theorist, assumed - or perhaps even had a note of some kind to the effect that he was on a list of ‘vexatious writers’...  And simply binned Green's letter on that basis. 

Green wrote again on February the 13th 2011. And on the 10th of March 2011 he asked the ministers to carry out a review of their failure to respond… And again he was ignored.  And so, quite rightly, he took his complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner…

The Scottish Information Commissioner found the office of the First Minister to be in the wrong, and consequently ordered them to answer Robert Green… The decision can be viewed here on the Commissioner’s website: 


Now… Here’s the rub…

Recently, two letters have been published online that purport to ‘prove’ that Alec Salmond is central to a ‘cover up’...


The first, addressed to one Neil Bailey at the SNP constituency office in Inverurie is from the First Minister’s office at Holyrood.  It makes reference to a letter sent to Mr Bailey by Green that apparently claims “Mr Salmond did not respond to the information commissioner’s for information over his conduct over the Hollie Greig case”…
 
In her response Lynn Forsyth, Deputy Private Secretary to the First Minister explains that the protection of children is a key priority for the Scottish Government. She also explains that the Scottish Government HAD complied with the Commissioner’s request. 

She adds that her office had received a letter from the commissioner’s office confirming their compliance – and the closure of the matter – on the 19th of July 2011.  Malcolm Ogilvy and a few others claim she is lying...   So, I actually contacted the office of the Scottish Information Commissioner myself to check this last point…  

They confirm that Robert Green applied to them for a decision on 10 April 2011. The Commissioner found that the Ministers had breached sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and required the Ministers to carry out a review... The Ministers subsequently carried out that review and notified  Robert Green of the outcome on the 8th of July 2011... 

So, very clearly what's proved is it's Robert Green - and NOT Lynn Forsyth who is the liar here...

The bottom line here is that Salmond’s office did not acquit themselves well… they shouldn’t have ignored Robert Green three times. And perhaps should have shown more respect for the Information Commissioner’s office; for their response to them was not timeous. 

But they haven’t hidden anything; Green did get his response…

I guess Salmond’s reply must have contained some inconvenient truth… Robert Green would like you to believe it didn’t exist… But the  plain fact is the Information Commissioner confirms that it does...  And it's been in Robert Green's hands for almost four years now...

In fact you can explore the answer that Green got here...

http://itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201101240.aspx

The letter to Mr Bailey shown above is dated February the 14th 2014… Just last year. Mr Bailey had apparently forwarded on a letter from Green received by him on the 14th of January. So what we actually have proof of here is that as recently as January 2014 - roughly 2 1/2 YEARS since he got 'Salmond's' response,  Robert Green was promoting the lie that Alex Salmond had ignored the Information Commissioner – and this is nothing but a blatant lie! I'll repeat... 

The office of the Information Commissioner has confirmed to me that Salmond’s office replied to Green on the 8th of July 2011. And here's the 'belt and braces' proof...  Here is a copy of the SIC's emailed response to me...



Dear Mr Quinn



Response to information request: full disclosure



I am writing in response to your email of 7 February 2015. You referred to an article published by “The Firm” and material published on the website “holliegreigjustice.blogspot” including a copy of a letter from the Scottish Information Commissioner dated 26 May 2014.



You asked the following questions:



1.    At any time in relation to matters pertaining to the Hollie Greig case has the Information Commissioner ruled that the Scottish Ministers have failed to comply with their obligations under sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act?



2.    If this is confirmed, can the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner please supply or otherwise direct me to where a copy of that ruling is posted?



3.    Is the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner able to confirm the authenticity of the letter dated 26 May 2014 purporting to have issued by it?



4.      Can the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner provide any further clarification or information which would assist in establishing the overall timeline and veracity of events relating to either matters referred to in “the Firm’s” article or the undernoted published letter.



I am pleased to provide the information below.



In response to each part of your request:



1.    The Scottish Information Commissioner has issued one such decision – Decision 104/2011 Mr R and the Scottish Ministers. The decision was issued on 26 May 2011.



2.    The decision can be viewed here on the Commissioner’s website: http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201100721.aspx.



3.    The copy of the letter which you enclosed with your email is authentic.



4.    The article published by “The Firm” and our letter of 26 May 2014 both refer to the above decision. In that case, a request for information was made to the Ministers on 28 January 2011. Mr R (the requester) sent a reminder to the Ministers on 13 February 2011. Having received no response to his request, he asked for a review to be carried out on 10 March 2011. Having received no response to his requirement for review, Mr R applied to the Commissioner for a decision on 10 April 2011. The Commissioner found that the Ministers had breached sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and required the Ministers to carry out a review. The Ministers subsequently carried out a review and notified Mr R of the outcome on 8 July 2011.   



This is a full release of all the information you requested.



While we believe we have complied with your information request in full, you may (if you are unhappy with this response in any way) ask the Commissioner to review her handling of the request. If you wish to do this, you should make your request for review to the Commissioner, at the address below, within 40 working days of receiving this email. Your request must be in permanent form (letter, email, audio tape, etc.) and should state:



· that you are asking for a review of this decision and



· why you are unhappy with the response you have received.



We will issue a full response to your request for review within 20 working days of it being received in this office.



Please contact me if you would like clarification of any of the points in this letter.



Yours sincerely





George Will
Freedom of Information Officer





George Will

Freedom of Information Officer

Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner

Kinburn Castle

Doubledykes Road

St Andrews

KY16 9DS

Tel: 01334 464610

Fax: 01334 464611



As a UK citizen you have the right to cross-check what I'm saying with the commissioner; In fact - I absolutely encourage you to do so!  Please DO write to the commissioner yourself and confirm that the email shown above is real...  

As if trying to 'shit stir' with Salmond's constituency office wasn't dishonest enough, the next step is where Robert Green is shown up and discredited the utterly duplicitous, politically driven, lying bastard he so very obviously is...

The second of the two letters that have been published by Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy and others is from the office of the Scottish Information Commissioner and, carelessly read, you might imagine that it corroborates Green’s fairy story about Salmond… But It doesn’t!

In fact the letter, dated the 26th of May 2014, merely supplies a limited amount of information that Green asked for… He asked the Commissioner when he himself had sent reminders to the First Minister’s office. He got an answer on the Commissioner’s notepaper that, for the record is irrefutably real (see the email above) - but why waste everybody's time asking a question he must have known the answers to; it's just stupid! 

Read between the lines of that letter... And remember that Green presents this to the world as 'proof' that Alex Salmond ignored the information commissioner. Remember too that the Information Commissioner's office is only able to answer the questions put directly to it - it's not able to contextualise answers unless it's directly asked to; as it was in my own request copied above... Green, quite clearly has asked these very limited questions for a deliberate reason... 

Why does the writer, in apparent tacit frustration, underline and emphasise that he's writing only about the dates of the reminders?  And why is Robert Green soliciting from the commissioner a letter on official notepaper that contains only those dates? Not the full information but ONLY those dates...

Bear in mind here that Robert Green is actually the author of these reminders and will know the dates already... 

I say Green's intention here is to mislead…  

Green is fully aware that the unquestioning reader - especially the gullible and 'slower minded' conspiracy theorist types - will not notice that this letter does not tell the whole story; and Robert Green was very careful not to ask the Commissioner for the whole story, because he needed just enough of it on official headed notepaper to promote his lie. - 

You can fool just some of the people some of the time Robert...  But eventually you will encounter someone who hoses down the smoke machine and takes a baseball bat to the mirrors...

This is actually evidence of how duplicitous Robert Green can be…  And who but a journalist would dig into this and start contacting the Information Commissioner’s office to check the fact?   

Robert Green is playin his 'audience' here for the fools many of them so surely are...  Green has been ‘punting’ this lie about the Scottish Government and Salmond – against who he seems to bear some sort of grudge – for quite some time. Indeed; it seems to be a pivotal point in the story he tells…  

But it’s a lie… Just a lie  Green got his answer and he damn well knows it. But he’s still prepared to try and mislead people.  Why is that?

So what are these 'missing records'?  - None!   Let's recap...

Going back to the 20th of June 2009, Green emailed the First Minister’s office ‘raising his concerns about the Hollie Greig case.  Salmond could not, by law, intervene or interfere even if he wanted to. Consequently, Green’s enquiry was simply passed straight to the Crown Office which replied on the 23rd of July 2009…   Those are the facts...

"Missing Records"?  A log in somebody's outbox at the FM's office forwarding Robert's email to the COPFS - maybe a few words 'FAO'-ing it?   

There ARE no bloody records to speak of! Why would there be?  Salmond's office couldn't and wouldn't have dealt with it!  It's just that simple...

Robert Green IS lying here...  Not for the first time either... And people are still daft enough to wonder why Hollie Greig got no justice?

8. Elish Angiolini – Cuckoo in the nest…



8. Elish Angiolini – Cuckoo in the nest…


Depending on who you talk to anything from half-a-million to two pounds of public money was spent pursuing Green; and his treatment does seem to have been unusually harsh, certainly unreasonable and pretty-much pointless. So why spend that amount of public money giving Green a ‘kicking’? 


One simple possibility is that attacks made by various individuals on the Scottish justice system in relation to the Hollie Greig case may have been politically motivated; to the great convenience of some.  That the agenda and the brief was (and remains) to try and damage the Scottish independence movement…  That is stated not in defence of the Scottish justice system or the Scottish authorities generally; for they are rotten and corrupt to the core; that much is plain.


But one might reasonably wonder what sort of ‘dirty trick players’ would envision such a scheme… And for the answer to that question you should look no further than Westminster itself, for until recently it was they and not the Scottish Government that granted the fiefdom of Scottish justice. And let’s not forget, it is Westminster that seems to be at the heart of the United Kingdom’s problem with establishment paedophilia.  


Much political capital has been made out of the Hollie Greig case – and certain politicos do actively try to promote the lie that it is “Salmond’s shame”. Factually, Salmond could take nothing to do with the matter...  To the extent that if you write to the First Minister's office about it they will pass the letter straight to the COPFS virtually unread.

The Hollie Greig case, throughout the run up to Scottish independence referendum, was actively leveraged by political animals – and I find it quite frankly revolting that people like Robert Green, Brian Gerrish and Belinda McKenzie should seek that to defend that which they themselves tell us themselves stinks to high heaven…  For the benefit of those of a poor educational level, Great Britain and the United Kingdom are two different things.  And the Palace of Westminster - paedophile central as some call it - sits at the rotting heart of the latter. Risisble that McKenzie for instance should, prior to the referendum, have spoke about still being able to protect British children...   Well for a start post-independence Scots would not cease to be British. And it's not as if scandals such as Smith, Savile and Kincora say anything positive about the 'British' establishment's capacity to protect children!

Then there are the pitiful little Orange (bargain basement Masons) lapdogs bowing and scraping obediently to the butcher’s apron…  And it’s these clowns that present the most obvious lies… 


Salmond’s shame? Really? - To their own shame that they're promoting a deliberate lie to advance the very system that nurtures perverts...


If these ignoramuses (and their hingers-oan) were a little brighter they’d know that the First Minister really has no power to intervene in the administration of justice.  – I’ll tackle their biggest lie – that of Salmond supposedly having been ‘found guilty’ by the information commissioner of some imagined crime – in my next post. But I’ll start off with the truth about the Lord Advocate…


The Lord Advocate of Scotland is appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the First Minister, with the (nominal) agreement of the Scottish Parliament. The post has traditionally and until recently been a blatantly political one; in the grant and favour of whatever political party was in power.  Thus, prior to the restoration of the Scottish Parliament the appointment came directly from London. Post 1999 and up until May 2011, as Scottish Labour have never been anything other than a puppet ‘branch office’ office of the London party, it is therefore from London that the orders came in terms of who held the position…


For those who are a little confused at this point by the fact that Scotland has had an SNP, not Labour Government since 2007, some appreciation of the history surrounding the tenure of Elish Angiolini is essential... 


She was appointed Solicitor General for Scotland on the recommendation of Labour First Minister Jack McConnell in 2001 and it was of course also McConnell who nominated Angiolini for the post of Lord Advocate in 2006. At that time it was fairly obvious that Scottish Labour were on their way out; this was therefore some eight months before his Westminster-branch office of the London Labour party was predictably relieved of its duties by the Scottish people…

The politicised nature of the Lord Advocate’s post has always been contentious and objectionable.  And Salmond had, pre-election, committed to "de-politicise" it; McConnel was very much aware of this. And so he selected a particularly contentious Lord Advocate knowng full-well what an effective plant she would be for the first few years of SNP tenure.

True to his word, Salmond did de-politicise the post. For instance, from 1999 until 2007, the Lord Advocate attended the weekly Scottish Cabinet meetings – he ended that practice, and a few others! 
 

Salmond was left with a political problem in the shape of Angiolini though.


To be clear the Lord Advocate is actually a Minister of the Scottish Government.... They are principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government and have influence upon it.  But decisions by them about criminal prosecutions and the investigation of deaths are taken independently of any other person.  Essentially the Lord Advocate has a fiefdom in the shape of control over the Scottish Justice system. They are an unelected person sat at the heart of government. And they are realistically answerable to no-one in terms of the practical administration of the law in Scotland.  


Those who imagine the First Minister or even the Justice Secretary have command and control over the Lord Advocate are sadly mistaken… Those who promote this myth really are deeply dishonest – or pitifully stupid.

Why did Salmond not sack Angiolini you may very well ask? Politics!



The (some might argue; I most certainly would!) sock-puppet Lord Advocate of a sock-puppet Labour party in opposition could not be seen as a good fit for the SNP government. But of course having officially de-politicised the post it would have opened the incoming SNP government to charges of hypocrisy to oust the incumbent Lord Advocate on the basis of her political affiliation. Further, politically insensitive too since she was the first ‘working class’ woman in post and had been there for such a short length of time!  


Certainly, Salmond was stuck with Angiolini, not enamoured of her. And if there's a smoking gun here it's pointed straight down at his foot!


Effectively he was in the uncomfortable position of having a political cuckoo in the nest, and one he could not easily undermine or get rid of.  ‘Scotland’s Shame’, or rather Alex Salmond’s shame is that instead of having the strength of character and integrity to rid the country of this vile political plant and ‘flush out’ the culture of corruption,  he played politics and (publically at least) went through the motions of supporting her and leaving her to it.  


Decades of political bias within The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) had ensured a ‘service’ really not fit for purpose.  The Scottish legal system is degenerate to the degree that it has (as I’ve said before) more in common with a Poker game than it has the administration of justice.  You can be fairly sure that the make-up of those that held positions of responsibility within the COPFS will have been and to some extent still is highly politicised and very much under the control of the pro-Westminster parties.  


For evidence of this you need look no further than the disgracefully ‘flameproof’ nature of Scotland’s Labour politicians.  Contrast and compare the treatment of the quixotic Robert Green with that of people like Steven Purcell, former leader of Glasgow City Council. Or the current City Council leader Gordon Matheson, who in late 2012 was caught by the police allegedly performing an oral sex act with an undisclosed 38 year old male in a public place.  


The stench of political cronyism hangs heavy in the air. As does the empty echo of justice not served. In both cases the COPFS decided not to prosecute their friends; you know Robert’s story!

Clearly a root-and-branch reform of the Scottish justice system was, and remains necessary. But politically this is a very tall order. Just flushing out the rot sounds like a great idea. But publically ‘outing’ each and every rotten apple within the current system would further undermine public confidence in it. There would no doubt be many challenges to past convictions with a percentage emerging as unsafe and much public time and money wasted revisiting safe convictions.  And then there is the problem of finding suitable replacements for these rotten apples – good ones don’t grow on trees! The costs would be huge. 


Depoliticising the Lord Advocate post was clearly a move in the right direction.  But if was nowhere near far enough.  And much as the political reasons for leaving Angiolini in post are clear enough, this was for Alex Salmond a huge mistake. For in doing so he actually armed some of those who would eventually stand against him, and the ambition of freeing Scotland from the perverted and corrupt grip of Westminster.


It should be understood that the law (like government itself) is a machine of immense inertia. Once it is set running it will complete its cycle and cannot easily be interrupted. Thus the incoming incumbent to the post of Lord Advocate is often left to face the consequences of their predecessor’s actions. To undermine them is to undermine the post itself, and this was particularly difficult for the individual that followed Angiolini, Frank Mulholland. 

********


A white paper for the proposed Scottish Referendum Bill was published, on 30 November 2009. And, although that bill was eventually rejected by MSPs it was fairly clear by mid-2010 that the Scottish people would again return an SNP government – with a renewed commitment to a referendum.   

Angiolini's coat was now on a very shaky peg...  With no prospect of her political kin regaining power at Holyrood she had to look to her exit strategy. Because there would be no prospect of her staying on. And one might reasonably speculate that here exit might not have been pretty.


Rumour – or ‘open secret’ if you prefer – has it that Salmond’s dissatisfaction with Angiolini was well known; it was certainly clear that she could not survive a second term of SNP government, particularly one that was moving towards an independent Scotland. Indeed, there is a strong possibility that she would have no significant place in an independent Scotland. Ever the egotist, Angiolini it would seem did not relish the prospect of being put out to grass. 


We have then a situation here then where an outgoing political cuckoo in the nest had both the opportunity and motivation to cause mayhem.  


With the writing for her political overlords once again on the wall Angiolini announced in October 2010 that she would resign as Lord Advocate the following May, fleeing the political nest and, as cuckoos do, leaving quite a lot of damage behind. One (to be fair minor) example of which being the fact that Robert Green was by this time well on his way to jail... 


Angiolini was in-post as Lord Advocate for just four-and-a-half years. I don’t entirely agree with Robert Black QC who said her tenure was a “disastrous experiment” – for he also went on to bemoan the fact that “In the past, the law officers have traditionally come from the ranks of the practising Bar and were supporters of the governing party… 


Angiolini’s tenure was (in part) disastrous because she was a political sock-puppet; although Black may have an unintentional point in that she was a sock-puppet for a party that was seeking to undermine the governing party. As for the “ranks of the practising Bar”?  - Seriously?  I’m afraid we can have no confidence in an ‘old boy’s club’ legal establishment that long-since gave up practicing law for the playing of games!


It is irrefutable fact that despite Salmond’s efforts, the Scottish justice system was a political fiefdom – and the stronghold of Scottish Labour.  Salmond would not and simply could not interfere in any way shape or form with its machinations. His Justice Secretary, the pointless Kenny McAskill was never anything more than a ‘Stookey Bill’.  The perception however (call it a smoking hole in his foot) created by Salmond was that the post was apolitical and had the full confidence of the Scottish Government.  Much as I understand the political reasoning behind it, Salmond was an utter fool to leave Angiolini in post. 


So, is it really just utter stupidity that causes some not to attack the man who would have torn the heart from a paedophile-infested Palace of Westminster? Or is it vested interest in deflecting attention from the real miscreants and projecting it onto others? 
 
As it stands I’m afraid I can only call ‘SHILL’ on most of those currently purporting to act in Hollie Greig’s interests…