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, 7 March 2015

10. An abuse of process.



 10. An abuse of process.

Firstly I would encourage you to disregard the spin and nonsense of Brian Gerrish and his kind.  – As a ‘commercial property’, which is what Robert Green was apparently being ‘developed’ as, he is lost to ‘Gerrish and Co’. – Brian is it seems quite disappointed. And obviously has his swivel-eyed, rabid-Unionist agenda to progress; despite the fact that his beloved Westminster is the beating heart of Paedophillia in the UK... If you stuck objectively to the matter of eliminating paedophillia instead of mixing it up with your own political agenda you might be more credible Brian... Your (pay) slip keeps showing! But hey ho! Other commercially-useful idiots are also available old bean!

There is nothing really new in the restrictions placed on Green. The interdicts against him were always permanent, and it seems simply that some additional clarity might have been given as to how the court will tend to interpret them in the future. The very fact that he found himself charged with attempting to subvert the interdicts against him means that the court simply could not be silent on the matter…

The plain truth is that had Green stuck to reality instead of attempting to spin half-truths, baseless personal attacks and utter fantasies into an attention-seeking shitstorm, he would never have been in a position where there was any legal basis for these restraints to be put on him in the first place. – Really; it’s just that simple…    As long ago as 2010 he was advised and encouraged to equip himself with a copy of the Journalist’s ‘legal bible’, Mc Naes – and start learning from it.  Obviously he didn’t do so!

There you go Robert – I told you so!

The original charge Green was jailed on
Factually – and contrary to what Gerrish claims – Robert Green wasn’t jailed for “exposing child abuse, and in particular the horrific rape and abuse suffered by Aberdeen youngster Hollie Greig.” In reality we know very little of that horrific rape; the opportunity to gather contemporaneous evidence having been suppressed by both of Hollie’s parents at the time. The inconvenient truth is that Green was originally jailed primarily for sending out baseless horror stories which frightened the hell out of ordinary people in a certain Aberdeenshire community. And when he had his day in court he offered no cogent or even relevant defence to that charge. 

Green faced interdict (injunction) because he had levelled baseless and defamatory accusations at certain individuals.  For instance – without making the most elementary checks – which would have debunked what he claims he believed to be true – Green accused a man of being a child rapist.   That man was a Scottish Sheriff, and that man took the appropriate legal steps to silence Green. 

Then there was the former Lord Advocate…

Elish Angiolini is – in my view FAR from an innocent in any of this. I have no difficulty in saying that I think her a vicious bully who – for political and personal reasons chose to abuse her position to try and gag certain of her critics…  But equally well, Elish Angiolini was GIFTED the basis for the interdict she obtained against Robert Green… 

The opinion of Lord Bannatyne  on the Angiolini-Green case is, in reality,  quite considered and detailed…  It reveals for instance that Angiolini’s QC – A Mr Dunlop, eschewed the mere technical ‘victory’ that was his by rights.  Lord Bannatyne’s subsequent consideration of the facts are most revealing. Bannatyne, to my eyes, seems to have gone to great trouble in ensuring any whisper of a point Green may have had was taken on board…

The full reasoning is here…


Robert Green did not make statements of opinion (as he vaguely attempted to argue) with respect to Angiolini, nothing much of what he says is – to the best of my knowledge or recollection – qualified as such… And even if it had been so, he was unable to state a cogent basis on which those opinions might have been reasonably formed which is a prerequisite of the ‘opinion defence’… 

Robert Green did not make statements of fact against Angiolini and by that I mean that what he presented as fact about her had no basis in reality. – For a veritas defence to succeed in these circumstances the onus is on the person defending to prove what they say has its basis in truth.  Green offered not one solitary shred of any such thing…

Instead – having actively ‘pissed off’ the lawyers that had been assigned to him such that they walked away and left him to conduct his own defence  – Robert Green basically argued that it wasn’t fair that he couldn’t defend himself…  The former self-styled ‘Lay Legal Advisor’ was now claiming to be a “foreigner”, ignorant of the laws of Scotland (no defence in any case) and as such helpless…   Of course the reason he’d lost his legal representation was that it’s not a Lawyer’s job to stand up in a court of law and make an absolute tit of themselves talking complete and utter pish on their client’s  behalf!  - Some might dispute that, but really; it’s not! 

As I say… Had he been a little more measured and not in the first place published a load of unsubstantiated bollocks, laced with vacuous personal attacks, Angiolini would not have been gifted any basis to go after him. – Contrary to what Green would like you to believe she is not immune for criticism or even being called into the most serious of question…  

But really; that interdict was a certainty given the way Green acted. And what did Robert Green really think was going to happen when he, in his childish way, attempted to piss on a court order from a great height?

*****

Just as I make no real criticism of Sheriff Buchanan, as a private individual,  taking out a court order against Green to stop him spreading unsubstantiated (actually easily debunked) lies about him; I cannot really criticise Angiolini for making a similar move.  In fact I’ll go so far as to say it was to be predictable in the circumstances. 

Although I do feel – as is so common with those that haunt the Hollie Greig case – given her particular position and its relevance to the case, there is much of the ‘Queen Gertrude about her actions and what follows on…

If one is to ‘take down’ a ‘big beast’ like Angiolini then the weapons need to be hard-tempered with cogent facts, solid evidence and truth.  Merely hurling the mud of random abuse in the hope some of it sticks is likely to leave your own hands dirtier than your target. And this is the case with Robert Green. There is in general terms immense scope for sound criticism of the Scottish justice system, Elish Angiolini and the COPFS - especially under her watch. - And much valid cause to apply several tons of salt to her pretentions to have stood tough on sex crimes. Much, in my view is wrong with the Scottish justice system to the point where I would describe it as having the stink of a fish rotting from the head down. And I do believe that careful research analysis and disassembly might well produce material that blows Elish Angiolini ‘out of the water’ so to speak… 

But there was none of that in what Green had to say about her or indeed Hollie Greig. 

There remains today a reasoned and cogent case to require that the authorities at least review the Hollie Greig case to discover exactly where and how the system failed this poor girl – the tripe Green promoted really served only to detract from that. He chose to pursue a course which was all of sensationalist, baseless and – if I’m honest – seemed to have more to do with him gaining traction on the (highly lucrative) conspiracy theory circuit than serving any kind of justice. The accusations he threw at Angiolini – some of which are detailed in Lord Ballatyne’s opinion – are just stupidly ignorant of the processes he seeks to pontificate on.

Robert Green has exposed himself as ‘not a clever or well-educated man’…  He hasn’t studied the law at even the most basic level, not even informally, not even when he was urged to do so. Instead he appears to have wallowed in ‘Perry Mason fantasies’ and blunt stupidity; hubris causing him to imagine he could outwit the experts that actually have their hand to the tillers… Did he learn nothing from his experience with Greg Lance-Watkins I wonder? From where I’m observing he seems to have been duped at least twice more by cut-glass accented charlatans. – Rather like the village idiot egged-on to commit some misdemeanour he stands in the dock tilting quixotically while those who are really to blame continue to reap the benefits of his ‘crime’.

The trouble with Robert Green is that he will apparently grasp any straw of fantasy that happens to harmonise with the looney-tune going ‘round in his head; he’s easily lead in this respect… Easily exploited… Easy meat...

Really… Robert Green has become the exhibit in the Victorian freak show.  - More to be pitied than scorned. Again I am reminded of the strange immunity from the law enjoyed by certain of those who would seem to have exploited this clown-prince made martyr; those who tricked and persuaded him to offer himself up for this execution.

And I believe there is a pressing need to question those who hold the reins of power as to what associations exist between them and those who seem to live within this strange protectorate?  

*****

I have a simple question to put to you, the reader…  As a member of the public what is in your interests? 

Imagine you are going about your daily business – walking your dog in the park perhaps or returning with your spouse from an evening meal.  Maybe accompanied by your children or the elderly members of your family. Do you think the law should act to protect you from the prospect of encountering two individuals rutting like animals in the street?  Is it in your interests that a paedophile with a particular interest in very small children, sadism and bestiality should be brought to serious book? Would you expect someone like that to be imprisoned for some years and severely punished?

With those sorts of crimes in mind and drawing comparison, how serious do you think the matter of defaming a member of the establishment is?  Are you worried for instance by David Icke telling you that the Queen is a shape-shifting space lizard?  Or even the more intelligently-constructed accusations that are levelled at politicians and those in public office?  How dear do you – the public – hold the egos of those who hold high office? Are those egos something you think merits protection on a par with the safety of your children?

Having already been punished through doing over three months on remand and then placed under – what is quite bluntly – effective house arrest, Robert Green is sentenced to 250 hours community service.  And that off the back of a beaten-down guilty plea…

Personally – as a member of the Scottish public - I have this to say to the COPFS and the Scottish Justice system…


You have failed miserably to acquit yourselves and in fact brought further disrepute and suspicion upon Scottish justice… You have let the public down yet again such that ‘no confidence’ is all I feel we can have in Scottish justice…

Green of course must bear his degree of responsibility for crossing the line…  But what is the real offence here?  What punishment is actually merited? Angiolini is quite correct when she says the Hollie Greig case is now the domain of crazy people and conspiracy theorists.  But of course, that is the place to which the case has been deliberately driven. - A place where any grain of truth or legitimate concern is easily hidden in plain sight. - Convenient for some.

Were it not a waste of time, there are a few points I’d put directly to Angiolini…

Of Robert Green, I cannot fathom what Mrs Angiolini might imagine she reasonably wants of the man… And make no mistake, I am of the firm view that his cruel and unusual treatment is meted out by Angiolini’s cronies at her behest. In this respect am not inclined to accept any abdication of responsibility on her part, for I also think there to be good evidence that the COPFS is steeped in a culture of cronyism corruption and dishonesty.

Green is utterly discredited, destitute and now in failing health. And he has faced very severe punishment. For what really?  Attacking Elish Angiolini’s ego?  Rattling her cronies’ cages? 

Don’t get me wrong… It is right and proper that she should have an injunction against him to stop his indulging in defamation. It is right that he should face a reasonable penalty for breaching it…  But really – dragging a half-daft old man up and down the country umpteen times like a yo-yo, taking away his liberty then continuing to kick and kick and kick at him until he is utterly broken? – Utterly broken…

Of Angiolini I’d ask what dignity, what credibility is there in this? Truly, the lady doth seem to protest too much… And from where I’m sitting she emerges as a really nasty piece of work. For clarity, simply ‘gagging’ a critic rather than debunking or even just them really rather fosters the light of suspicion rather than extinguish it.

Angiolini’s interdict against Green rests primarily on a matter of defamation.  Is there not an element in the principal of defamation that the claims must lower the defamed person in the eyes of right-thinking people?  I’ve heard it said for instance that individuals like David Icke get away with what they do largely because most right thinking people would think them deranged and therefore not take their claims too seriously… 

I assert the view that the same can be said of Robert Green.

Elish Angiolini is actually on record as dismissing allegations relating to the Hollie Greig case as "the rantings of crazy people and conspiracy theorists".  Does she really hold the intelligence of the ‘right thinking’ people of Scotland in such contempt that she thinks them fools enough to be lead by such individuals?  I’m afraid Dame Elish just cannot have it both ways! - There is either sufficient  apparent credibility in these allegations to reduce her standing in the eyes of right thinking people or it is all just la-la-land rubbish that only the deranged will buy into…   

Make up your mind woman!

Now – beyond that accepted on the balance of probability by the CICA – I am certainly of the view that, not only are the extended allegations pretty-much baseless, but the Hollie Greig case was subsumed into fruit-loop territory a very long time ago.  Essentially then the most recent case against Robert Green becomes that of a “crazy” (in Angiolini’s terms) quixotic old man, down to the bones of his arse who has indulged in the technical breach of a court order…

Clearly, the court cannot just ignore this…  But what is a reasonable punishment?

Before going any further with this line of reasoning I’ll draw attention to a benchmark or two… I contrast the positively draconian treatment of Green with that reserved for the likes of Gordon Mathieson… Caught, it’s reliably alleged and reported, in a public place ( a public park in Glasgow where people take their kids and old ladies walk their dogs) with another man’s penis in his mouth – but let off the hook to continue ruining the lives of Glaswegians as well as presenting an affront to common decency…

Or his predecessor Steven Purcell; Cocaine-shamed lower than a snake’s belly and so far in with Glasgow’s criminal underworld it was like something out of one of Hollywood’s worst prolefodder gangster movies…

Or let’s consider the matter of one of Angiolini’s former colleagues, one Stuart MacFarlane… A former Principal Procurator Fiscal depute.

In 2006 it was alleged that he had been caught in the street being fellated by a prostitute – rutting like an animal in public seems to be a favourite thing of these high-powered perverts. The COPFS – McFarlane’s employers decided "it was not in the public interest" to proceed to trial and potentially jail their bent-as-a-four-pound-note chum!  So far so fireproof! Until 2013 when there was a Police raid on his home…   Over 15,000 images of extreme and child pornography was found on his computer equipment - the filth included images of bestiality and sadism… Toddlers featured in the muck he drooled over...

So – not only an affront to public decency but a clear danger to vulnerable children…

For the latter crime MacFarlane was given 300 hours of community service even though some of his images were of girls believed to be as young as three.  And, let’s bear in mind that MacFarlane did NO jail time…  In fact, it was later reported that MacFarlane had actually been allowed to complete part of his community service doing his night classes at Glasgow University. – Classes that could really only benefit himself… Effectively rewarding MacFarlane for his crime!

Contrast and compare this with what has happened to Robert Green in relation to this latest matter…  

Green served 96 days in prison, on remand in relation to this offence. In addition to this he must carry out 250 hours of unpaid work in the community to be completed over the next two years.  

In 1982 the English Court of Appeal, in the case of Regina V Lawrence, held that an order of 190 hours was equivalent to one year imprisonment.  Extrapolating from that we can see that Green has been effectively sentenced to roughly sixteen months plus the three months he spent on remand – the equivalent of nineteen months imprisonment; that’s not taking into account the draconian bail conditions he had while awaiting trial – which really were so severe they amounted to a form of house arrest…

Using the same extrapolation, MacFarlane – who let’s remember is known to have indulged in sadistic fantasies and lusted over three year old girls – also received to a nineteen month sentence - Actually slightly less to be pedantic about it.  

There is something VERY wrong with a system that routinely lets doggers and druggies walk free just because they hold high office…  

But there is something utterly warped and not fit for purpose about a system that gives the ridiculous egos of their own cronies parity with a very real, present and serious threat to children… There is something wrong, filthy and disgusting when on top of that a dirty pervert is actually REWARDED for his crimes.   

Seriously, however much in the wrong Robert Green is, at the end of the day he is just a misguided fool whose motivation is the PROTECTION of children... A misguided fool who happened to call into question one of the COPFS' Mandarins... 

He is figuratively 'beaten to a pulp' by the Scottish justice system while a dirty filthy pervert who happens to be one of their cronies is treated with kid gloves...  And it's not - as Mathieson and Purcell well illustrate - an isolated example of this cronyism... This perversion of justice! 

Do the high-and-mighty Elish Angiolini and her band of stuffed-shirt hingers-oan not understand how cruel and corrupt this makes the entire Scottish justice system?  

Let’s remember that Elish Angiolini was not only the first apolitical Lord Advocate but the last politically-appointed one under Labour! Certainly, when we compare and contrast cases like those of Mathieson, Purcell (both Labour politicians and one might reasonably opine cronies of hers) and that of her COPFS crony MacFarlane with the inhuman treatment meted out to Green; and recall that the COPFS as it is today is very much Angiolini’s legacy…    

Really Mrs Angiolini... What a stench!  What a parcel of rogues!