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?

Wednesday, 18 March 2015

12. Matt Quinn, Mark Daly, the BBC and the Hollie Greig case!


12. Matt Quinn, Mark Daly and the BBC.


In this past week’s ‘postbag’ of tripe I’ve mostly been accused of being ‘in cahoots’ with the likes of Mark Daly, the BBC and of being a ‘mainstream media’ shill.  So I’ll spend a little time first of all on educating the morons who come up with this trash…


Firstly, your emails don’t really get read in any detail, you’re not ‘getting to me’ and I have nothing to fear ‘from’ the idiot wind that wafts  from conspiracy central like the toxic air from a room full  of chronic flatulence sufferers.  Those who occupy that space  simply need educated for their own good; before they wind up getting into the same sort of bother as Robert Green, Tim Rustige or Sabine MacNeill…  ‘Sacrificial lambs’ to the money machine that (for instance) sees some occupy £1.3M houses with no visible means of support. And others who turn over twice that, touring the world like rock stars…  


Oh, I don’t paint those willingly groomed for the sacrifice at the alter of conspiracy theory to be innocents any more than I’d paint a street-corner drug dealer as such.  But I do often find myself reminded of the Derek Bentley case, and how Hugh Maw, the educational psychologist who attended him at school, said…  "He was never violent, he was bullied and easily led". When there was trouble at school, it’s noted, the young Bentley would be the one left behind as the brighter boys fled. 


This led to frequent beatings from the authorities…  Sound familiar? Some may recall that Bentley eventually swung for somebody else's crime!


When these emails pop in to my mailbox I can’t avoid the titles and maybe first line or two but basically I just hit the ‘block sender’ button and get rid of it all. One or two sensible people WILL get a response from me – and they obviously know who they are – but for the most part I’ve just not got the time for the nut-job agenda which seems to define both sides of the divide on the Hollie Greig case… 


It strikes me that the ‘common purpose’ both sides have is to keep the spotlight off the little grain of truth at the centre of Hollie’s abuse…


So…  Me, Mark Daly and the BBC? – Here’s the raw truth of it… I don’t know the guy and he doesn’t know me! 


There was a point (a few years ago) when the Hollie Greig case was ‘on the boil’ where Mark was due to speak at an event in Glasgow where (by coincidence) I was due to supervise the filming. This event was run by a third-party, had essentially charitable aims and deserved no disruption.  Once I realised Mark was the speaker I immediately replaced myself with another Director and advised the organising party as to the circumstances…  


I’m aware that one of my several ‘impersonators’ contacted (was apparently actually a part of!) the ‘Hollie’s army’ group – and the first signs of disruption were mooted…  That individual was - I believe – part of a group of students involved in voluntarily stewarding the wider event Mark’s talk would have been a part of...  


I’m also aware that (consequently or not) Mark recused himself from the event on grounds to which I neither a party or see as any of my concern. He had another reporter take his place, the event went well...   


So – There you have it… The link between me, Mark Daly and the Hollie Greig case. 


And I make no apologies for that. I don’t think it right that an unconnected third-party event with noble objectives should have been at risk of disruption – especially as, in relation to the Hollie Greig case, Mark Daly is (at worst) guilty of nothing more than being overly gung-ho… 


Actually I’m not sure that I’ve ever been in direct contact with Mark Daly… 


To me he’s just another face in the media crowd. And, after 35 years in the trade you get to a stage where certain things pass over you. If I have ever ‘worked with’ Mark it must have been a very long time ago when he was at a very early stage in his career.  If I have (as has recently been claimed) been photographed ‘drinking with him’ it will simply be a case of being in the same pub or event at the same time…  Why not publish the photograph?  As I so-rarely frequent pubs, never go to nightclubs and almost-never attend organised events (unless I’m working at them) I’m sure I’ll be able to give you chapter and verse on what when why and where…  


I’m not actually sure I would recognise Mark in the street nor he me…  We aren’t and never have been ‘workmates’, really don’t know each other and really don’t move in the same circles. I don’t work for the BBC and wasn’t trained by them… My training was done at the now sadly-defunct Thames Television in London. I left the company in 1986 and have (mainly) freelanced ever-since; primarily in the almost-invisible role of ENG cameraman – have kit will travel. I’ve certainly worked for many of the ITV companies, Channel 4, 5 and several American broadcasters but not for the BBC…


I’m REALLY not a ‘fan’ of the BBC either…


In truth, from where I’m standing at least, the BBC comes across as a ‘Brilliant Boy’s Club’ in the fiefdom of what I call the ‘Milngavie Mafia’.  – A wee clique of ‘posh-boys and girls’ who keep all the best toys to themselves.  They don’t like ‘scheemies’ (except for the odd politically-tame one admitted to their inner sanctum) like me. And they certainly ‘don’t approve’ the product of that nasty ACTT’s (The Association of Cinema and Television Technicians) onetime attempts to rationalise training in the broadcast industry - Which was seen as something of a threat to their public school/army camp model at Wood Norton…


But I digress…  Fact is I’ve never worked for the BBC. Nor, I suspect, am I ever likely to… Kicking (as I do) ‘wi the wrang fit’… So no… Mark Daly and I aren’t ‘mates’ and are colleagues only in so far as we work in the same industry…


But I do know something in general about the commissioning process for programmes and the laws relating to matters such as reporting restrictions and defamation. You see I was, for some years, a lecturer in Multimedia and TV production at Glasgow’s Stow College. One of the subjects I specialised in was media law…  Something of course I’d been trained in myself and, as the owner of two production companies, need to maintain a working knowledge of.  I actually wrote the course material used in the delivery of that subject, running it through both my own lawyers and those who were the SQA’s moderators…


I know the law on this subject… And with 35 years in the industry I know how that works too. And I’ll be honest… I’m a little surprised that things went as far as they seemingly did with Mark Daly and the rest of the BBC Team that seem to have been involved.    

According to Robert Green… 


“It was Daly who first contacted me in April 2009, within days of the News of the World running the story that Hollie had been awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. At this time various other mainstream media outlets were interested in the story but Daly wanted the BBC to have an exclusive and Anne and myself agreed to this.”


This sounds quite plausible… Bearing in mind that Daly would at this point be on the outside looking in, with little more information than the News of the World report.  People often forget that journalists are in competition with each other for content; the BBC is no exception.  Daly, it would appear, moved quickly to secure the broadcast rights to the story for the BBC…


Clearly the fact that Hollie had received compensation was intriguing – and I’ll guess here that Daly might just have been lazy enough to assume a certain level of ‘due diligence’ on the part of the News of the World reporters such that what they published was legally safe and could be taken as read. I’m willing to speculate that he might even have been mislead to believe so by contacts at the paper.


Obviously, this  an error of judgement many of us would like to think we wouldn’t have made – and I’m surprised that Daly, with his level of experience did – but then hindsight is 20:20, and we didn’t know then what we do know now about how the News of the World operated. It’s reasonable to form the opinion that what they published was little more that a spell-checked and grammatically-corrected excerpt from Greg Lance-Watkins’ ‘Stolen kids blog; Green even tells us Watkins was instrumental in the publication of that piece…


Is it believable that Daly told Green that a programme had been commissioned by the BBC?


Two emails, first seen a few years ago, have recently been re-published, purporting to be from Daly – they’ve not been checked for either veracity (i.e. did Daly send them at all) or accuracy (might Green have altered or truncated them) …  


I have redacted the email addresses here…


Subject: RE: Anne and Hollie
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:24:27 +0100
From: mark.daly@XXX.XXX
To: xyzabc green@XXX.XXX

great news. i will be sure to call here tomorrow.

At the moment, it's going to be a BBC Scotland commission for both tv and radio. However, i fully expect it to make national news at the time of broadcast and potentially a Panorama. But for the moment, we press ahead with the BBC Scotland commission for a 30min investigation to be boadcast sometime in the late summer.

thanks for those kind words. talk soon


-----Original Message-----
From: robert green [mailto:xyzabc green@
XXX.XXX  ]
Sent: Mon 4/27/2009 10:44 PM
To: Mark Daly
Subject: Anne and Hollie

Hello Mark,

I`m pleased to say that Anne fully accepts the conditions we discussed and will only deal with you or your colleagues from now on.

I have told her to refer any media requests she may receive to me, so that she`s not put under unnecessary pressure.

If you do get the opportunity to have a brief word with her before you go away, I`m sure it would be appreciated as until now, every door has been shut in her face.

Best wishes to you and your wife-to-be for the future,

Robert 


Now – I’m going to ask you to bear in mind Robert Green’s duplicity with respect to his communication with the First Minister’s office – Factually Green has spent years promoting the lie that there are “missing records” relating to the Hollie Greig case; and he has used this lie to promote his and others' – blatantly swivel-eyed unionist – political standpoint…   

The very same sort of ‘economy of truth’ was apparent when he was up on breach of the peace charges  and, most recently when he faced the court for breaching the non-harassment orders that stand against him. – Green and his cohorts pretended that he didn’t know what he was charged with! 


As a response to Robert Green’s email – which is what it’s represented as - Daly’s alleged reply makes absolutely no sense whatsoever… Daly will call where ‘tomorrow’?  Is it perhaps a ‘typo’? Daly proposes ‘calling her’ (i.e. Anne Greig)?  But what of the first sentence?  


At the moment, it's going to be a BBC Scotland commission for both tv and radio. However, i fully expect it to make national news at the time of broadcast and potentially a Panorama. But for the moment, we press ahead with the BBC Scotland commission for a 30min investigation to be boadcast sometime in the late summer.”


A fair answer to a question along the lines of ‘what do you hope to do with the story?’… But otherwise a very strange response to the email it’s supposed to be a reply to. I’m inclined to form the opinion that there are parts missing from this conversation…


Now; hindsight is always 20:20…  Mark Daly wouldn’t be the first ‘staffer’ to start imagining he has the keys to the kingdom and seem to promise commissions that were not in his gift. Not the first to become so cocksure of himself he started to assume commissions were simply a rubber stamp…  Not the first to grow somewhat lazy and run with assumptions…  It’s even quite probable that the story by this time would have been approved by one of Daly’s editors such that it reached the ‘pre-commission’ sometimes called the ‘provisional commission’ stage…


It’s quite possible that information was relayed to Robert Green…  A man who seems to hear only what he wants to hear - or at least repeats only what he wants to hear.  A mistake in my view. And I have to say that in teaching this subject I would always impress upon my students the need to be upfront with the subjects and try to leave them with no scope for misunderstanding...  Perhaps Daly was or at least thought he was; Green is - we now know - duplicitous. But when dealing with the public it’s wise to be aware of the fact they very often do hear what they want to hear, and I’d be very wary of ever suggesting a programme had been ‘commissioned’ – let alone hint at transmission dates - unless it was virtually at the stage where the cameraman was charging his batteries!  


In the half-decade or so since Daly made that error of judgement the world of journalism has changed radically.  It was always best-practice anyway; but lessons learned I suspect he and others will be rather more circumspect these days in terms of how they ‘handle’ members of the public; especially those presenting as Robert Green did…  Being quite careful not to give the impression a commission is ‘in the bag’… 

Then of course there is Robert Green’s now proven tendency to misrepresent what is said or written to him. We do not have much of the chain of communication between Green and Daly in front of us. Just a snapshot that paints a particular picture which – when subject to a little critical thought – isn’t at all well drawn… If there is a doubt that anyone is due benefit from it - objectively - must fall to Daly.


Before moving to seek (full) commission Daly would have been required to do the basic due diligence on the story – basically to prepare it for its initial legal audit.  And I suspect that he was somewhat ‘over enthusiastic’ in deploying the resources that saw a BBC team actually visit Anne Greig in early June 2009.  – Personally I wouldn’t even have wasted the petrol!  - But then maybe the BBC can afford to be a bit more thorough…


As Daly pointed out on the fateful Tony Legend show, when the simple checks are done  birth, deaths, and marriage records reveals much about those named as both abusers and Hollie’s co-abused. Some stark realities emerge – (Sheriff) Graham Buchanan has no sister or female relative (a sister in law for instance) that could possibly account for the woman in Anne Greig’s tale. Other characters cannot be found at all or are of such an age now that they could not possibly be the individuals involved. Attempting to cross-check other records and accounts only reinforces what the public records say…   


Beyond a simple point – that of Hollie having probably suffered sexual abuse at the hands of individuals with free access to her – this case just does not stand up to scrutiny.  As Daly put it… “the one allegation that did hold any water has been washed in a deluge of these other, slightly fantastical, allegations”. 


In the hope that it was possible for Anne Greig and Robert Green to ‘straighten up and fly right’ I kept on digging...  Green was encouraged to educate himself in the law relating to reporting restrictions and defamation.  Anne, it was hoped, would ‘reign back’ on the more fantastical part of her account and focus on what could legitimately be explored.  And they were given every 'face-saving' opportunity to place the matter on more rational grounds...


Like Daly I found the facts surrounding the CICA award intriguing. As I did the hysterical reaction of Greg Lance-Watkins; digging into his background revealed a great deal. - Digging into the backgrounds of various others - on both sides – revealed much too…


Some deeply damaged people had been involved in the matter. For instance, one individual who assumed a relatively high profile emerged as a former mental patient; now tacitly masquerading as a ‘BBC journalist’ off, apparently, the back of a single ‘NQ’ video unit completed at a local technical college and a tour of a BBC office - all done as part of their ‘rehabilitation’…   Elsewhere links to the UK’s – and particularly Aberdeen’s - ‘swinging’ scene emerged. – Robert Green, you may recall (some considerable time after the fact) sought to link various high-profile names to the ‘Violate Club’; although he had been ‘sold a dummy’ in terms of the membership list he tried to push, he wasn’t entirely off-base with this.

There were some more sinister characters too...  It was – still is – apparent that the agenda to draw all the heat away from the Hollie Greig case was as multi-layered as it is disturbing.  Matters ranging from the merely ‘grubby little lifestyles’ of assorted weirdos to fairly serious issues that may link to extreme and child pornography start to seep out from the mud that had been thrown around.  Where the authorities are concerned the ‘strange immunities’ that some enjoy as compared to the treatment meted out to Green, give rise to a quite sickening stench for instance… 


But as far as the story – as presented by Robert Green and Anne Greig – is concerned, the Hollie Grieg case is as much a manufactured distraction from the serious issues at the heart of the matter as  anything the ‘Hollie Hoax’ group have come up with; possibly more so…


Returning to Mark Daly’s situation – quite clearly this story was never fully commissioned… In fact I’m a little surprised it got as far as it apparently did. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if - internally to the BBC of course - Daly was given a 'dressing down' for having dragged the BBC into such shallows. But with Robert Green’s track-record of lamely ‘spinning’ and misrepresenting facts, I’ve no real reason to be convinced that the notion the BBC got to any sort of ‘advanced stage’ holds water. 


Was Mark Daly threatened that he’d ‘lose his job’ if he ran with the story? I doubt it… 

Simply - Mark Daly would be fully aware that if he published the great steaming pile of worthless crap that Robert Green was promoting, he’d almost-certainly get sacked! Incompetent people don't keep their jobs...  And it’s entirely possible that Daly has said as much directly to Robert Green. As critical as I am of the BBC, it's never been the shambles many of the red tops are...  Let’s remember that the News Of The World no longer exists, thanks mainly to the wholly unprofessional standards of ‘journalism’ it operated…  


Daly has ‘secret’ recordings of conversations with Robert Green…   

Is it possible that in one of these conversations he angrily ‘faces down’ Green with the complete and utter crap he tried to feed the BBC? Is it possible Daly was less than 'freindly' towards the man who quite frankly had tried to take the piss out of him? Is it possible that in the heat of the moment he explains to Green in no uncertain terms why he isn’t going to put his career on the line to promote a worthless fairy story…


I’ll repeat here that, in my opinion, Anne Greig’s extended allegations are a much a smokescreen from the truth surrounding Hollie Greig’s abuse as anything Watkins or the ‘Hollie Hoax’ crew have come up with…  Recalling yet again how Green has lied about matters such as the ‘missing records’ I’ll leave you with a simple question...



Robert’ Green’s permission is required to release those ‘secret recordings’ that Mark Daly holds.  As Green’s proponents emerge – possibly on his behalf or even at his behest – trying once again to discredit the BBC with the lie that they ‘pulled’ the Hollie Greig story, why won’t Robert Green give his permission for those recordings to be released? 


Strikes me that – rather like the reply he did get from the First Minister’s office – those recordings represent an inconvenient truth…

Saturday, 14 March 2015

11. Robert Green… A Full Pardon? Don’t be bloody stupid!



11. Robert Green…  A Full Pardon? Don’t be bloody stupid!

Serve the truth without fear or favour or serve the same master as the likes of Greg Lance-Watkins and the Hollie Hoax group.  From where I’m standing you cannot currently get a fag-paper between those purporting to be ‘pro-Hollie’ and their ‘Holllie-hoax’ counterparts. The one thing both groups seem hell-bent on drawing the focus away from is the truth…

The notion that the whole case is an attempt to deflect attention away from more serious matters becomes ever more convincing by the day! 

Why was Robert Green lying about matters such as the First Minister having withheld information from him?  Why is he wallowing in fantasies about being nominated for the Nobel Peace prize?  Why, right up to sentencing, was Robert Green still trying to obfuscate the truth of the Hollie Greig case by trying to sustain the extended allegations?  What was all this nonsense about racist slurs and Masonic plots at his trials?  Latterly, the notion that Hollie’s abuse was Satanic in nature was introduced to the admix; presumably for a bit of extra colour!  

How much further up Mockingbird Lane do these spivs, shills and fruit-loops need to park the Hollie Greig case? 

Some years ago I posed the question; what it is the likes of Greg Lance-Watkins and the rest of the ‘Hollie Hoax’ brigade were trying to draw the heat away from? After all, short of one of her abusers confessing; nobody’s going to jail for abusing Hollie… Why promote the lie that she was NEVER abused?  What purpose does that serve? - That took me down the road of investigating Greg Lance-Watkins, and exposing him as the undoubted Walter Mitty fantasist he so surely is. 

And similarly I discovered much about the other charlatans lurking down the rabbit hole…

It has apparently been confirmed by the court that in future, the view will be taken that if Robert Green ever mentions the words “Hollie Greig” again in public he will be deemed to have breached the interdicts against him.  – Brian Gerrish would have you believe that this has been extended to the very mention of the abuse of anyone; but no reliable court report that I have seen confirms this. Rather, it seems there is some possibility Robert was simply reminded of the standing reporting restrictions that exist with respect to the naming or identification of alleged or actual sex abuse victims, and that he is under particular legal restraint.  – Essentially Robert Green has been warned to stop playing ‘Perry Mason’ around the edge of the restraints that have been on him for quite some time.

I’ll also flag up another issue - 

It’s true that the ‘Hollie Hoax’ group are very much in the wrong. They seem unconcerned with the truth of the matter. Even to the extent they seem hell-bent on inventing justifications as to why there is evidence the child was defiled. - Some indulging in what I’ll call ‘descriptive analysis’ so inappropriate for publication it can only be viewed as a form of deviant pornography in itself.   

But just as far-removed from the reality of the situation is the nonsense that’s being promoted by many of those who purport to be ‘pro Hollie’ and/or anti child abuse.  Much of this tripe is entirely political in nature and usually alloyed to the more swivel-eyed and sectarian factions of the unionist movement. – Factions that can themselves be linked to serious crime, disorder and sexual deviancy; especially paedophilia.  

I don’t think there is any serious doubt that the Hollie Greig case has and is being used by Little Orange Lapdogs to damage the SNP and the independence cause generally. Virtually all we ‘hear’ in relation to the authorities’ handling of the matter is nonsense about Alex Salmond and regurgitated attacks on the SNP from the unionist ‘alternative press’. –  And yet what is supposed to be at the heart of the matter? – A sexually-abused girl that the system failed… She seems to figure nowhere on their radar so long as some cheap and generally vacuous political point can be scored…

Why is that?  

While these clowns are busy utilising Hollie’s abuse to target people they simply don’t like, the real miscreants behind the failings that caused justice to fail Hollie, and Robert Green to be persecuted are having their purposes fully met. And what’s more they are having their position bolstered…

And then there is the latest tune from 'fruit-loop central'… A full pardon for Robert Green?  Why? On what possible rational basis?

His latest conviction rests on a simple and admitted fact… George Robert Green decided to piss from a great height on a court order legitimately obtained against him...  You can't do that and expect to get away with it! - That simple! 

It's claimed that this time around 90% of the charges were dropped and therefore the prosecution's case was weak... Were they really?  That sounds like bollocks to me; just as the earlier claim that Green didn't now what he was being charged with was bollocks - (if that had been true any third-year law student could have had the trial stopped and the case thrown out).  But then Robert Green does have a habit of treating all his audience as if they button up the back - and some do; but not all!

But so what? Even it were true that 90% of the instances quoted against him were withdrawn from evidence it’s irrelevant because a conviction is a conviction - even on one count… Would the imbeciles chanting this mantra be so keen on exonerating a rapist who was originally charged with buggering ten kiddies but admitted to one and was let off the hook for the other nine? 

It is fact that much of the material Green was called to book on was technically published by other people... But how much of that was at Green’s behest?  And are those brain-dead and very often (it's alleged) drug-addled wasters actually aware of how close they themselves came to being arrested and charged?  The fact is the interdicts against Green affect both him and anyone working on his behalf or instruction!  And that little word ‘or’ is quite important…  For the benefit of the terminally-stupid it does not matter that Robert Green didn’t actually tell you to publish his tripe. Acting on his behalf is enough to see yet another clown-prince of the conspiracy theory circuit jailed… 

Take the old "Free Robert Green" site for instance...   Now defunct... Supposedly on the basis that it might harm Green himself... Is it really beyond the wit of some people to realise that its owners were quietly advised that it might breach the interdicts and leave - not Green - BUT THEMSELVES open to prosecution?  - The claim that it was taken down to reduce the risk to Green is really an insult to the intelligence. The very fact it can be proved who the site registrant is - It's registered to a house in Blaenavon associated with a 'fringe politician' - means THAT individual rather than Green is 'in the frame'...


Green’s jailing - the extreme and inappropriate actions of the Scottish authorities to what is, after all, just a case of a loopy conspiracy theorist has brought (quite legitimately) some serious negative PR attention to the COPFS. And that is really all  that has kept these eijits from ‘the knock’ already!! 

So, what basis is there to ‘pardon’ someone who has admitted the crime?

Some might argue that Buchanan and in particular Angiolini should not have been able to obtain the interdict and non-harassment order against Green in the first place.  – And I might agree were it not for the fact that the claims against Buchanan are so vacuous they virtually debunk themselves. Although at the time before we knew what we know now of why Green was under charge it seemed a troublesome move – Buchanan’s interdict is watertight.  

Angiolini’s is even more interesting…  Whilst overall (as a private individual) Buchanan’s move to interdict Green was right and proper; as an officer of the crown it does smack of gagging. At the time I have taken and maintain the view that it would have been better if Buchanan had gone for a defamation suit; because that way Green would have had the opportunity to have his assertions against Buchanan tried in court – that or been forced to formally retract them.  ‘Technically sound’ or not, at the time Scotland was left looking like something of a tin-pot dictatorship…  But that rather changed with Angiolini’s action… 


The plain truth is that Lord Bannatyne’s consideration of Angiolini’s case does have many of the important characteristics and features of a defamation case.  Here, for Robert Green, was the opportunity missing from Buchanan’s action; to present the facts in a court of law. Here was the self-described "Lay Legal Adviser's" opportunity to exhibit his 'learning and skills' with respect to the law, and utilise the veritas of his 'well researched' position in support of his claims… 

But Green did no such thing… He floundered foolishly presenting not one serious shred of evidence in his own defence. This arrogant barrack-room lawyer, having left his own counsel with no real alternative but to drop him, bleated childishly about how unfair it was that he, ‘ a foreigner’ should be tried under Scots law of which he is ignorant…

Ignorance of course is no defence. But he’d have been less ignorant if he’d taken my advice back in 2010 and got himself a copy of McNaes… And know that ‘English’ law is not so very-far removed from Scots in terms of the offence he was accused of.  

Angiolini – quite rightly – got her non-harassment order… Why wouldn’t she? Green had offered the court absolutely no reason not to grant it! He offered no defence… 

This was also true of events that had seen him jailed in the first place… In the run-up to his jailing Green was coy and deceptive as to the exact nature of the charges he faced (as he has been in this most recent debacle).  He went to jail because – Instead of offering any kind of cogent or relevant defence – he tried to ‘showboat’ at his trial; turning the entire thing into a complete farce! I seem to recall remarking at the time that had the judge been Green’s own Mother, legally, she’d have been left with absolutely no choice but to jail the damned fool…  And I’ll remind readers here that in the time leading up to his first jail sentence – and since -  Green and his cohorts have wilfully mislead the public as to why he was behind bars…

Robert Green hasn’t ‘helped’ the victims of sexual abuse in any way, shape or form… Quite the reverse. He’s armed those who – like Elish Angiolini – would like those outside her circle; her fiefdom, to be casually dismissed as nutcases and conspiracy theorists. He’s contributed to a situation where people like Jimmy Savile’s victims are routinely labelled as ‘attention-seekers’ and ‘gold-diggers’…   

There remains a legitimate, logical case to argue in favour of holding a formal review of the Hollie Greig case. Of seeking a formal investigation into it and explaining clearly and finally to the public how the system came to fail her... And explaining how things have changed to protect people like Hollie in the future…    But that argument is lost in the black noise created by Robert Green and his cohorts…   

True, the punishment he has faced is cruel and unusual and excessive; out of all proportion to his crime. And that lights the light of suspicion that yes – ‘something’ is not right here. 

But Robert Green?  He is no innocent – not by a country mile!