14. Run little doggy run…
Amusingly, Macolm Konrad Ogilvy re-posted my previous entry on his shill 'holliegreigjustice' blog describing it as "matt quinns final post" [sic].
Final do you think Malcolm? Was this meant to be some veilled threat? Because if you imagine for a split second I'm about to be intimidated by some pitiful, wasted, non-achieving, pipe-cleaner of an individual you are very much mistaken. My previous post won't be my "final" anything, not by a long chalk. - I didn't lie down to your Orange Order comrades who threatened me in the street, nor have I folded to their attempts at shutting down my business.
Do you think, little Malky, I'm in the slightest bit impressed by a scrawny illiterate that can barely string a sentence together? So keep on running Malky... You're a pathetic shill a coward and a liar... And a dirty lously bastard of hell for trying to exploit the RAPE of poor Hollie Grieg to advance your scummy sectarian Little Orange Lapdog politics...
As I’ve suggested many times, those who fail to serve the truth – to any degree – in relation to the Hollie Greig case, serve (wittingly or otherwise) those who abused her. - And, as the likes of Ian Samson and Alistair Stewart found out to their cost, I've no fear of the large price that sometimes has to be met in order to ensure the child-abusing filth gets flushed into the sewer where it belongs - even if it takes me years...
That’s why, for instance, I ‘took down’ Greg Lance-Watkins… He who walked the walk of Queen Gertrude in that he protested too much to the tune that Hollie Greig was never abused. – Whilst it’s true that most of the material presented as ‘evidence’ in Hollie’s case almost debunks itself, it is on the balance of probability cast that she was abused. And whether it happened once or a thousand times makes it no more or less serious. The justice system at least gave her the inadequate acknowledgement of having suffered at the hands of a criminal; that tiny fragment of dignity. Why would anyone seek to rob her of that? Unless they served some nefarious agenda?
That Robert Green should fall
under the spell of an establishment shill like Belinda McKenzie is
unsurprising. Green, unfortunately, is a man who will tie his colours by anyone
who tells him what he wants to hear. Had Robert Green stuck to the truth
of the matter he would never have seen the inside of a jail cell and we might now have achieved some form of official enquiry into how
the system came to fail Hollie.
We might now be working towards a greater surety that the sickeningly-common, probably familial abuse that Hollie suffered is safeguarded against. And we might have held a better flame to light the lights that would expose the network of pervert-apologists who rounded on Hollie’s case to draw the heat away from it.
We might now be working towards a greater surety that the sickeningly-common, probably familial abuse that Hollie suffered is safeguarded against. And we might have held a better flame to light the lights that would expose the network of pervert-apologists who rounded on Hollie’s case to draw the heat away from it.
Green instead tried to play
politics… And to seek martyrdom and notoriety for himself on the conspiracy-theory circuit. In particular, no doubt under the leading-influence of swivel-eyed
right-wing establishment loons, he sought to use the Hollie Greig case to
undermine the Scottish independence movement and, in particular, attack Alex
Salmond…
Now, I stress that I’m no ‘fan’
of Salmond or the SNP - in fact I'm deeply aggrieved at their record on matters such as the reduction in FE provision and their determination to ensure that the working classes are consigned to stadt-controlled aberplatzen by ending the right to buy one's own home... My
personal view of politicians is that they are, in general, the lowest of the low. It simply sickens me that ‘stairheed politicos’
such as Green, Gerrish, McKenzie and Ogilvy would seek to exploit a tragic case
like Hollie Greig to serve their cheap political ends.
It’s an inherently cheap trick –
but moreover, it’s a sinister one too. Serving as it does exactly the same
purpose as (for instance) Greg Lance-Watkins dishonest claim that Hollie was
never abused. Serving the ends of distraction from the truth of this case, leading
the observer away from (potentially) a network of perverts that might
ultimately cause the exposure of other, perhaps more high profile, cases of
child abuse, abduction and sexual exploitation.
The politico-sectarian nature of
Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy’s incoherent and semi-literate ‘holliegreigjustice’ blog
is explored below in post 13. And his pitifully shallow and politically
motivated lie regarding Alex Salmond, and the imagined ‘missing records’
relating to Hollie Greig is disassembled and debunked here…
It’s rather sad that people have
been taken in by this lie to the extent they’ve wasted their time, money and
energy pursing it, when they could perhaps have been chasing down the real
perverts behind Hollie Greig’s abuse.
One such misguided individual is
one Scott Pattinson, who recently put the following questions to the Scottish
Government…
“1. When did you first become aware of the
allegations made by Hollie Greig about her being abused by members of a
high-ranking paedophile ring in Scotland?
2. What
actions, if any, did you take after becoming aware of Hollie Greig’s
allegations?
3. What
action does your Office – or you – intend taking regarding the inaction of your
Government’s, then Procurator Fiscal and now Lord Advocate, Mrs Elish
Angiolini, thereby placing other children at risk of abuse by this alleged
paedophile ring?
4. What
action does your Office – or you – intend taking in respect of Mrs Angiolini
proven attempts to cover-up this specific case related to Hollie Greig? You
will be aware of the attempts of your Lord Advocate to cover-up this case due
to the emails I and many others have been sending to you and copying you into,
which contained links to comments, speeches and letters made by Robert Green
and his supporters. The information contained in those emails, for the best
part of a year, clearly demonstrate the Lord Advocate’s involvement in this most
despicable of cover-ups. Please feel free to review my previous emails to you
for assistance in answering this point and the previous point.
5. Why
have you not acted on requests for your involvement, as the First Minister for
Scotland, to bring a criminal investigation or instigate a public enquiry into
the lack of a proper ‘full’ Police investigation in this matter where the
witnesses and accused are actually questioned rather than either ignored or
left to go about their business, respectively?
6. When
can the Scottish people expect to see their First Minister act to amend the
public perception of non-action by you and your Office, which amounts to a
dereliction of duty and bringing the reputation of a public office into
disrepute?”
The Scottish Government's response was as follows…
Question 1.
While our aim
is to provide information wherever possible, in this instance we do not have a
record of when the Scottish Government became aware of these allegations.
Question 2.
The Crown
Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) is the sole public prosecution
body in Scotland, responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal
offences in the public interest. The
Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are responsible for taking decisions
and directing the police in relation to criminal cases. The First Minister
cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal
conduct. No other member of the Scottish
Government is able to take any action either.
Therefore, this is a formal
notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have
the information you have requested in Questions 1 and 2.
Questions 3 to 6.
FOISA gives
you a right to recorded information which is held by the Scottish
Government. The above questions are not
requests for recorded information held by the Scottish Government. As explained in our response to question 2,
COPFS is the public body with responsibility for investigating allegations of
criminality. In these circumstances,
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not valid requests for the purposes of FOISA
because they relate to matters which are not the responsibility of the Scottish
Government and we therefore have no reason to record that information.
You may find it
helpful to look at the Scottish Information Commissioner’s Decision 194/2011
which is available on her website at: http://itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201101240.aspx. This decision agreed with these
answers to the same questions which were asked by ‘Mr G’ in January 2011.
There are a couple of very relevant points to be noted here…
Firstly that the Scottish Government have now confirmed to one of
Ogilvy’s apparent ‘inner circle’ that – as I have pointed out all along – “The
First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of
criminal conduct. No other member of the
Scottish Government is able to take any action either.”
Secondly – the link in the Scottish Government’s response directs you
to matters surrounding the detail of the response from what was effectively ‘Alex
Salmond’s office’ back in 2011…
A
response that Robert Green has dishonestly tried time and time and time again
to claim does not exist…
A lie that is promoted time and time and time again by Malcolm Konrad
Ogilvy…
Interestingly, Ogilvy reproduced the Scottish Government's response on his ‘holliegreigjustice’
blog yesterday (April the 10th 2015) – with the annotations I made
which exposed the dishonest nature of his claims edited out… The whole entry has since been ‘taken down’
from public view. But the incident does prove, in my view, the entirely dishonest way in which Ogilvy runs his charade...
The questions then have to be asked… What is it about the truth surrounding the Hollie Greig case that Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy fears? Who’s interests does he serve? Who is he trying to protect and why? And why is he playing pied-piper, dancing the likes of Scott Pattinson up mockingbird hill?
The questions then have to be asked… What is it about the truth surrounding the Hollie Greig case that Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy fears? Who’s interests does he serve? Who is he trying to protect and why? And why is he playing pied-piper, dancing the likes of Scott Pattinson up mockingbird hill?
I won't hold my breath waiting for Ogilvy to stop trying to lead people away from the truth... Clearly the man is trying to keep people's eyes 'off the ball'. I'll simply lead you, dear reader, to consider a question...
Why is Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy – just like Greg Lance-Watkins before him – working so hard to keep people’s eye off the reality of the Hollie Greig case? With all roads in the case leading to Portugal, why are we being 'drawn away' from a couple of no-marks holed up in a run-down hovel in the arse-end of nowhere?
Why is Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy – just like Greg Lance-Watkins before him – working so hard to keep people’s eye off the reality of the Hollie Greig case? With all roads in the case leading to Portugal, why are we being 'drawn away' from a couple of no-marks holed up in a run-down hovel in the arse-end of nowhere?
