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?

Friday, 14 August 2015

17. The Immunity of Idiots.

Unusually I’m posting this entry to both the Hollie Greig and Hampstead blogs that I run. I’m doing so because it contains general observations with respect to how the truth – and the pursuit of the truth – is often damaged by providing succour to blind dogma, and how the unscrupulous are ready willing and able to line their pockets and/or sate their damaged egos and fill their empty lives at the expense of those who have and are suffering.

And no, I haven't written much recently… Both cases are pretty-much a waste of time now; overrun with nutcases whose 'best shot' in life has been overcoming the quaint demon quirks of English grammar to develop a stunning command of stilted prose which illuminates their lack of real intellect in Megalux proportions; more often not even that.

I've been contacted recently by several people, and one gentleman in particular, who has encouraged me to view a discussion currently taking place on the David Icke forum with respect to the Hampstead abuse case.  – I shan't be publishing the link as requested; Mr Icke certainly needs no encouragement or input from me in his side-show endeavours. And I've no intention of trawling much through much of the thread in question either.  The reason being that his forum and indeed his fanbase seems to harbour a significant element that is all of ignorant and deluded and focused on things that are far from the truth. There is little or nothing cogent or of any value to be found there...  

It is unfortunate if reality results in explanations that are "too neat" (to quote one particular idiot) for those with dogma snapping at their heels or who fear their sideshow ending. Real life often is quite prosaic, the truth dull and unentertaining. Events are often consequences of some previous action. And cogent explanations are by their nature very-often rational logical and 'neat'.

Dismissing the truth on the basis that it is too dull to provide adequate entertainment does not in any way challenge it.   

Likewise if they – Icke's Conspiretards - are unsatisfied with the 'content' I provide… 

In this respect some do seem to have confused me with one of their own kind; a 'stairhead fishwife' like Icke or Belinda McKenzie whose stock-in-trade is titbits of juicy gossip; making capital at the expense of others suffering.  For clarity – I am not here to thwart justice or provide dirty laundry for you to sniff. I merely comment on the truth, and stick to what is legally reportable and, in my professional opinion, in the public interest…

In other words I am disinterested in supplying what amounts to a form of pornography – get your cheap titillation elsewhere!

And for clarity I am completely unmoved by the implied 'rejection' by those who seek their vicarious thrills and, in some cases, validate their own twisted perspective through wallowing in conspiritainment.  – I require no validation from the likes of them I can assure you…   And I have no ambitions or need to gain position within their childish 'clique' or make motion in the world of flim flam.  

For my only interest really is in the plain simple truth…  Dull as it is.

Therefore (for instance) the reason why I debunked Robert Green and Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy's blatant pack of lies about Alex Salmond is not political but that it is, quite simply, and provably documented as a complete and utter pack of bloody lies  Lies with a clearly sectarian-political motive.  

I couldn't care less about Salmond and would just as readily have debunked lies about Margaret Thatcher, David Cameron or Ian Duncan-Smith; all of whom I regard as thoroughly evil people.  For the simple fact is that lies are lies, the truth is the truth – it's that simple, even if the latter is inconvenient…  

'Taking down' an enemy with a lie is not an act of integrity; and risks providing an escape route for the guilty.  For if one aspect of a conviction is proven to be unfounded then the whole of it becomes unsafe. And the fact that Green did indulge in this palpable lie destroys any notion of him being a man of integrity.  – If it's the truth of the Hollie Greig case he sought then he should have stuck to just that, and not indulged in making up stories to sate his own sectarian-politico aims and agenda.

Whilst I am on the subject of lies and liars it is also palpably untrue – as recently inferred by Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy - that I never communicated with Robert Green. For I was at one point in quite regular email contact with him in an effort to encourage him to 'reign back' the embroidered idiocy of the Hollie Greig case and focus on the prosaic truth. For sure, I wouldn't waste the time and petrol going down to see him. But I gave Robert Green sound advice – which would have kept him out of jail and recovered that part of the story that holds water; allowing the real can of worms at the heart of the case to have been opened. 

But Robert Green – as is now clear – only had his own place on the conspiritainment gravy-train in mind, and zero interest in the truth.Robert Green is not and never was interested in getting to the truth of the Hollie Greig case - for it is rather dull.

As a determined martyr, spurred on by McKenzie he continued in his quest for limelight and eschewed the truth. The man is a damned bloody liar! Habitually so it seems!  A liar who has been central to (paraphrasing Mark Daly) ensuring that the one grain of truth in the Hollie Greig case being washed away in a tidal wave of nonsense…  And in that respect he stands today just as suspect as the disgraceful Greg Lance-Watkins. Two sides of a single coin.

- As for Icke himself, and his forum and his fans and their like?

As you might gather I'm really not a 'fan' of 'conspiritainers' generally and especially David Icke.  It's true he does speak the truth much of the time and a lot of it is deeply disturbing and something we ought to know about. But then he goes and spoils it all by saying something stupid, often really very stupid indeed. - Quite deliberately in my view.  By this means Icke - and his kind - cause the baby of truth to be thrown outr with the bathwater of nonsense. - This is how they work to provide a smokescreen for the very system they shill for.

And for me Icke is foremost among those hiding the truth in plain sight – Clown Prince of the British disinformation industry. – And, making as he does a very good living out of it, he is very much part of the problem, not the solution.  

However, some relevant points have been made by those of his readership who wrote to me and it is reasonable to address them…


The Hampstead 'Papa Eats Babies' hoax - and it is a cruel and evil hoax - is to the fore just now.  And yes! - I do remain troubled as to why the British authorities have (apparently) not acted – and it seems foreign hosting companies are complicit in this inaction – to 'stamp out' the repeated identification of the children involved in the Hampstead abuse case.  Even if they were to wave a magic wand and elimintate all such material today it would be too little too late. The damage is done.

I am also – for those who aren't in the business of building straw-men – quite vociferous in criticising the authorities in their actions to gag – rather than debunk critics such as (for instance) Robert Green. 

And I do agree; such cases do smack of a culture of institutional cover-up.  There is a problem here. Our overlords are corrupt to the marrow. Something simply has to be very wrong with a system which refuses to use existing laws but instead reaches for a clumsy bludgeon to silence its critics.

I work on the near sure assumption that the authorities are not as stupid as they make themselves seem. They must understand that they generate questions in their wake – questions that could otherwise be easily dispelled.  Therefore there is purpose in such duplicity – and that purpose is not to serve justice or meet society's needs; but to exploit its weaknesses and set smoke-screens…

Cherry-picking elements of such cover-ups and twisting them to fit some 'pet' theory is quite simply dishonest – but for the sake of entertainment (and profit) it's what Conspiretards do, and the authorities and con-artists (like Icke) regularly exploit this.  Therefore my position is that those who admix the truth with outrageous lunacy are working to hide that truth – to ensure that any rational person WILL surely  dismiss it as the ranting of idiots.

For instance when the much-criticised BBC, in a recent radio programme, recounted the Hampstead children's testimony they did so using actors. This wasn't done for any dramatic effect or to draw attention from anything. And I can be fairly-sure that 'dramatically speaking' the producers might well have preferred to use the original recordings. - It's simply what the law demands and, as previously explained elsewhere in my writing, the law makes such demands to protect the victims of sex crimes and give them opportunity to rebuild their lives.

Legally and morally no responsible reporter would risk exposing a sex-abuse victim to pillory by identifying them…

But this was quickly picked-up by the Conspiretards and twisted to try and link the Hampstead Hoax to Savile, and from there promote the notion that the BBC is riddled with institutional paedophilia. 

Meanwhile Conspiretards continued to blatantly exploit footage of the Hampstead children, placing their wellbeing in further danger, something that continues to this very day.  And for clarity, it is not legally sufficient of the various amateur 'Lego journalists' for them to have partially (i.e. inadequately) blurred out the kids' faces in certain posted versions of recordings. And it is particularly unsatisfactory that some have merely 'inverted' (i.e. turned negative) the picture… An easily reversible step…  Which one could argue is deliberately contrived to make the kids' faces available to sexual deviants whilst trying to circumvent various bans on posting the material.

Any genuine seeker of truth would take the time to educate themselves in the laws of the land and understand their purpose.  Any genuine seeker of truth would immediately recognise the need and the value of these laws. Any genuine seeker of truth would understand that victims need to come first; and make no move that might cause further harm. But for conspiretards the BBCs compliance with the law, and their seeking not to further endanger children or expose them to further abuse is a game-spoiler. And how long and how hard they bleat, exposing the kids to yet more abuse as they do so…

Partially of course this is due to stupidity and ignorance – such as that displayed by the parade of clearly mentally-ill people such as the unfortunate Neelu Berry.  But, sickeningly there are the more culpable seeking celebrity, such as the sickeningly ill-educated self-proclaimed 'journalist' Angela Power Disney. - Or self-styled legal advisors such as Robert Green or Sabine McNeill. 

The latter two are particularly pertinent examples – neither was ignorant of the law and I can tell you first-hand that Robert Green was provided with the material to educate himself.  Neither was incapable of assimilating the information or guidance which is readily available…  They simply chose to ignore the law, instead promoting what they knew to be nonsense – in a  quest for potentially lucrative martyrdom…


Great harm has been done to various children through the Hampstead Hoax.

Primarily of course I am referring to 'P & Q' as the limit of reporting restrictions allow me to refer to them. Their faces, voices and names are strewn all over the internet and not just in 'historically posted' materials but in current, freshly updated material.

But it must be remembered that these two unfortunate innocents are not alone! For in the course of uttering baseless and defamatory statements about various adults in relation to the Hampstead case, other children fall foul to what journalists and other professionals refer to as 'jigsaw identification'.  And the law is – on several levels – very clear as to the illegality of this.

Without a shred of care for the psychological wellbeing of children who are complete strangers and innocents – abuse and insane allegations have been thrown at parents as they go about their daily business, maniacs – themselves child abusers to the marrow – have show blatant disregard for their victims as they have unloaded the putrid filth from their own imaginations onto innocent families.  – In their attempts to mind-fuck complete strangers the children have been transparent to these lunatics, for all their vulnerability.And therefore it is the children who have been made to suffer most.

As surely as anyone who physically indulges in the sexual abuse of children, those who have promoted and gloated and made-merry around the Hampstead Hoax have damaged the minds and blighted the minds of innocents; and are themselves just nonces of a different shade… 

Primum non nocere, non-malfeasance – the primary guiding principal of anyone working on the side of right. And that which sits at the heart of our laws and conventions on child protection.  - Meaningless to the dishevelled madmen and women who in their efforts to vilify the parents painted vile and twisted pictures on the blank canvas of children's minds.

Hundreds of people have now had their lives damaged by the 'Papa eats babies ' scam.  …And for what really? Not the sake of any truth or reality – but to sate the perverse appetite for conspiritainment, in order to make cold hard cash and promote the interests of certain Grifters and con-merchants. 

The 'puzzle' (as if it really were that) is that both hosting companies and 'law enforcement agencies' – to use a wide-ranging term – are it seems 'tolerating' and tacitly-allowing this… 


Before going further with this I am fully aware that certain postings have been taken down either by court order, the intervention of the police, or the simple involvement of lawyers.  But in the great scheme of things is has been – as is so often the case – far too little far too late…  

Google and YouTube – among the main offenders in terms of giving platform to these maniacs - are infamous for their insultingly-inadequate sham 'protection policies' will answer to nothing short of state intervention in the shape of law-enforcement agencies.  In recent weeks it has taken determined lobbying from victims, their solicitors and a diverse range of media professionals to cause law enforcement agencies to become involved and force these hosting companies to act in respect of the Hampstead case.  – And even at that, images and video of the children are still easily found today…

Whilst I would not discourage readers from 'reporting' incidences of these and other victims being identified, to hosting companies directly, you are in my opinion farting against thunder!  - They just don't care!  But then what else might you expect from the savage predators of a new frontier?  Non-malfeasance comes way down the line from profit where these companies are concerned.

Should you ever find yourself the victim of the online defamation game – even where (as is the case with Hampstead) there is a criminal (malicious communication) element to that defamation, you will for instance probably find your local police force  to be 'not fit for purpose' in terms of their interest in action. Modern policing seemingly-has more to do with keeping the crime stats down than actually tackling crime. And if you're persistent in trying to assert your rights or take a stand against crime, there is every chance the Police will turn on you – by some means – to try and shut you up… And stop you from despoiling their nice, neat, tidy, crime figures…

But in itself this is no great global conspiracy per se. The mega-corporations of the internet do not have the slightest interest in your personal safety or the safety of your children.  – Conspiritainment drives traffic, and traffic means profit.  And though they may feign 'responsibility' and concern, the plain truth is that their systems are designed to deflect complaints long before they will deal with them.  – They are quite happy to make money from other people's suffering. 

- As for the Police and their inaction? It's simply that Politicos – the Robber-Barons of Westminster - have over the past quarter-century or so de-resourced and dumbed-down the police service.  Officers are no longer selected or progressed on their integrity and skill but on their compliance in terms of being happy to trot out party-lines and meet vacuous 'targets' without question. 

And this pattern is by no means limited to the Police Force but cuts right across public service…  Your local police simply lack the time, knowledge, resources and have had the will knocked-out of them to deal with what they will view as 'trivial' matters of 'online squabbling'…   

Local police apathy is perhaps explainable – if not justifiable or acceptable. But there are those 'out there' whose actual job it is to act on such things. And the question is why are they not doing it?  Consider for instance those who should be policing the scam artists milking this type of case… It is not news that Belinda McKenzie's latest scam – The Knight Foundation – is now under investigation by The Charity Commission. Calls for it to be investigated have been made by a number of different people almost since its inception.

And it's not as if McKenzie doesn't have 'form'…

Aside of course from the infamous Iran Aid scandal, McKenzie was also linked to a scam 'charity' calling itself "Against Child Abuse" and latterly "Truth and Hope" – The latter was particularly deceptive as there is in existence a genuine, properly registered and fully legitimate Christian charity called "Faith, Truth and Hope"…  

"Against Child Abuse" was most notable for utilising the 'charity number' XT26748. – Charity numbers simply do not take this form.  And let's not forget the 'Starchild' project or the fact that McKenzie was rattling the 'charity' tin supposedly for Hollie Greig.  

In keeping with this pattern… Named with confusing similarity to The (American) "John S. and James L. Knight Foundation" – and the now-defunct English charity the "Thomas Knight Foundation" – Belinda McKenzie's latest scam has, without any form of charity registration, been soliciting donations which it was passing on to Sabine McNeill – a woman who until a few days ago was living as a fugitive from the law due to her criminally-incompetent actions whilst masquerading as a lay-legal advisor in relation to the 'Papa eats babies' Hampstead SRA hoax…

But it has taken a degree of 'heaven and earth' movement from a number of credibly-interested people to get the Charity Commission 'interested' in reviewing the latest shenanigans of this serial-scammer…  

Why is that?  And how the hell was she ever allowed near any kind of charity activity after Iran Aid?  Again; given that the authorities are not stupid it can only have been by tacit consent that McKenzie has for these many years been able to get away with her scamming, grifting ways…

Like Greg-Lance Watkins she is now becoming more 'idiot' than useful.  And it would appear that she has now exhausted the limits of her apparent state-sponsored immunity.  The spectacularly incompetent illegality of what her Association of McKenzie Friends scam was doing has been the unravelling of her – in the eyes of all but the most unhinged and/or dishonest of conspiretards and con-artists at least.

We see the arrest in recent days of Sprechstallmeister McKenzie's most recent 'buffer'  - Sabine MacNeill . And her latest hokkani boro? Very possibly nipped in the bud! We hope!
And many do sincerely hope it is not long before this evil old grifter herself is prosecuted and hopefully jailed…   Whilst there is no mitigation for them – they are after all grown adults who should know better – Belinda McKenzie has – quite clearly – set up both Robert Green and Sabine McNeill to 'take the drop' for her scams.

Time the old witch had a taste of her own porridge?  Possibly not as she quite calmly announces she's quitting the country…  And, it seems the authorities are quite content to allow her to do so. Perhaps she's simply playing the last of her 'get out of jail free' cards?
And what is the net outcome of her and the likes of Icke's actions? 

Lying con-men such as the transparently-dishonest Ben Fellowes/Lee Hazeldean/Jonathan Pitt (three of his aliases) and well-known crooks like Andrea 'Tara' Davidson are closely associated with the conspiritainment circuit.

The latter I know was, thirty-odd or so years ago running various low-level scams in and around the London area.  I know this for at the time I was a local-news cameraman. She had a scam running whereby she would claim (for a not inconsiderable fee) to be able to get her victim a council house. – A fake official, complete with forged credentials and documents completed the illusion… Arrangements made and bribe (circa £1K – quite a bit of cash in 1982) handed over, Davidson and her accomplice would move on to another district and another victim.

By 2012 she had progressed to being convicted by a jury – in her absence of fraud, theft, falsification of census records, operating a fake document factory and operating multiple bank accounts in the UK and various off shore locations under multiple false names. …Some 26 charges in all. She is also linked to the infamous George Abru Gang and, it's thought, various high-level politicos.

Davidson has also tried to cash-in on the Jimmy Savile scandal by claiming to have been at Duncroft Approved School for Girls in Staines… On 'the list' of Savile's alleged haunts. Naturally, she claims to have been abused. In reality it seems she was somewhere very different. 

The conspiritainment industry seems infested by known crooks like this – it is literally the modern day wild-west sideshow…    How DO they get away with it? 


It would be inappropriate to close this piece without drawing attention to the fact that Conspiretard Street is not a one-way avenue. The conspiracy circuit thrives on staged-battles. And staged-battles of course require carefully selected warring factions whose job it is to keep the audiences eyes off the scenery-shifter working away at the back.

It was so in the Hollie Grieg case where the polar-opposites of Robert Green were no more interested in the truth of the matter than those making merry over it. Notably, whilst the extended allegations surrounding the Hollie case are palpable nonsense there has actually been no action or hearing which exonerates anyone of involvement in Hollie's abuse…  

Ironic because the inquiry Green called for would have achieved just exactly that!

As Mark Daly noted, the one part of the Hollie Grieg story that does stand up to scrutiny has been washed away in a tide of nonsense; with both sides contributing to that tide…  What was it in that sickeningly-routine grain of truth that caused all hands to go to the pumps in order to try and stop the can of worms from being opened? 

We see something similar in the childishly abusive Scarlet Scoop and 'her' Hoaxtead Research site.  – A site that seems closely-aligned with the 'Holly Hoax' brigade and equally frightened of the truth… It is, quite frankly equally-and-oppositely as unhinged as the mentally ill 'Jacqui Farmer' Hampstead Research site…  With 'Scarlet Scoop' in particular having proven 'herself' every bit as dishonest – and perverted – as her opposite number...

For instance, on the 9th of June 2015 we passed the following comment, obtained via Google+ and apparently authored by one of the Hoaxtead team, to the Police…

"Who the fuck's XXXX? As for your pathetic death threat, that's even more laughable than your jealousy over a blog that shits all over yours, is better spelt and more professionally written and has a much higher view count. Oh and you loved it until I banned you, haha. Want me to screenshot some of your fawning sycophantic comments and display them to embarrass you? Or maybe I'll just edit them to make it look like you threatened to rape me then pass them on to the Police. Either way..."

"Pathetic death threat"?  - Let me reproduce the tail end of what 'she' was responding to…

"As was - and remains true of the Hollie Greig case, the professionals don't stop investigating nor do they buy into one party line or another. - But fret not XXXX... I won't be exposing any 'innocent' swingers or 'amateur porn stars from the 1980s unless I discover them to be on the 'extreme' edges of the greyscale - and even then my first port of call will be the police... Now - Go away XXXX and wait for the knock…"

"The Knock" of course being common parlance for a visit from the Police… 

And yet here, this clearly twisted and dishonest individual is quite prepared to cry 'death threat' and offers to fabricate a very serious false accusation which 'she' is fully prepared to take to the Police... 

How is this any different in principle to Ella Draper fabricating a wild story in order to damage her ex-husband?  Or Anne Greig's 'imagineering' a wild tale of high-level paedophiles, murder and cover-up at the highest levels?  

 - Whilst such threats are water off the proverbial 'duck's back' they are telling of a mentality  which is warped and a moral compass that is long-since degaussed!

There is no basic difference between 'Scarlet Scoop' publishing (or even just republishing) restricted documents on her website and Sabine McNeill or Belinda McKenzie or Robert Green doing likewise… The hypocrisy is astonishing!

And no; reporting restrictions on the arrest of Sabine McNeill have not been "lifted" to any extent.  The case remains legally 'active' and consequently the professional press have adhered to the restraint put upon them by law.  - On the other hand, "Scarlet Scoop's" claims that there is 'nothing illegal' about what she has done - and that 'she' 'regularly checks this' - are childish, uneducated tripe...

It is true that the Police and other authorities have 'played' Scarlet Scoop and carefully monitored 'her' blog; but as much for information regarding any offences she might be committing as gleaning information as anything else…  The Police, quite clearly do not endorse those who are themselves breaking the law; and I fully expect (it's rather obvious from what they have written actually) that those behind the 'Hoaxtead' blog actually don't understand how 'far out on a limb' they have placed themselves… Morally and legally.

For instance… Despite her obvious culpability, making merry at the plight of the obviously-seriously-mentally-ill Neelu Berry is hardly the action of someone with right in mind or on their side.  Neelu is quite clearly a very sick woman, and who knows what she may be capable of?  "Scarlet Scoop's" pilory of her could very easily be the catalyst that worsens her condition, causes her to become suicidal, self-harming or even to 'go postal'.  - If Neelu 'cracks' and goes on to hurt some innocent person - that will be in part due to the actions of 'Scarlet Scoop' and her band of merry-makers.

The Police - were she really interacting with them - would readily point this out and warn her against behaviour that is likely to precipitate a Breach of The Peace!  

Similarly; publishing (or, I stress, even simply re-publishing) parts of Sabine McNeill's private medical record or for that matter her restricted legal documents, is none of legal or moral. – Sinking to the same depths as those who indulge in witch-hunting is simply in itself witch-hunting. And just because something has been placed (illegally) in the public arena does not place it in the public domain.

'Scarlet Scoop' is clearly cast from the same die as those in her sights...  These are not the actions of a morally sound or justified person. Rather, Scarlet Scoop seeks celebrity and self gratification within a small pond of prize idiots who wallow in the traffic stats from their tawdry activities and imagine their small world is the world...

But such is the nature of the cheap, tawdry conspiritainment industry and those who treat its boards.  – Blowing smoke to keep your attention away from the truth.   MI5 you say? Nothing so glamorous I'm afraid. – More like something from MFI… One leg shorter than the other so as it doesn't stand up and full of carefully drilled holes; all in the wrong places!