3. Where am I?

3. Where am I?

For clarity (a phrase I’ll use often) and the absolute avoidance of any and all doubt; my own position on the Hollie Greig case remains, as it always has been…  I remain convinced – it is my considered opinion - that Hollie, as a child, was the victim of routine familial sexual abuse. But I do not now, and for the record never have, endorsed or accepted the allegations of a high level paedophile ring as promoted by Anne Greig – the ‘extended allegations’ as I call them. 

I am also convinced that Robert Green has been used and abused by individuals with a nefarious agenda. His treatment at the hands of the authorities has been extreme. And there is another spectre here – that of Greg Lance Watkins.  Watkins was at the heart of the matter and I believe that to have been no accident. 

I do believe Watkins to be what is often termed a ‘useful idiot’. But acting on what authority and in whose interests?  - Some say organisations such as MI5 employ such imbeciles. Is that credible? Like most people I’m inclined to think not… But then Watkins does seem to enjoy a peculiar level of immunity from the law. – And official reaction to the Hollie Greig case has been nothing short of bizarre. 

We have had in recent times various exposés in respect of the culture of perversion that seems to prevail at Westminster such that the  question must remain of where this case might ultimately lead. Why did it have to be ‘road blocked’ in such a peculiar way? 

This grotesque little nonentity will figure often in my account for a good reason; he plays a major role in the sad case of Hollie Greig. And I don’t think he acted entirely on his own behalf; rather I have formed the opinion that his actions seem to be in the interests of other parties who were involved in the abuse of this girl.

As to Hollie herself, broadly speaking I concur with the findings of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, who made a palliative award to Hollie in respect of this probable abuse. No more, no less. But it is absolutely vital to gain some perspective on the reality of the CICA award and its implications… 

Factually it has been found – by a credible legal forum and after expert analysis - that, on the balance of probabilities, Hollie Greig was sexually abused, that is why she was awarded compensation. It is also the case that we have some clue as to who abused her. 

But the standard of evidence required to get to that point falls a very long way short of what is needed to actually convict a man of rape. The required standard there, quite rightly, is ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’.  We are not now and never have been even remotely close to that in Hollie’s case; and never can be. The clues as to the identity of Hollie’s abuser(s) are fragile and vague. So much so that I will not even name them, nor do I think it legally wise for anyone else to do so either…  

For a start, given the amount of information about this case that is ‘out there’ for public exploration, naming these individuals only provides them with the possible technical defence that they could not get a fair trial. - Not that there ever really was any prospect of a trial.  Let me be very clear on this. Short of her rapists actually breaking down and confessing, there is absolutely nothing that can be done for Hollie save to ensure the rest of her life is as peaceful and secure and happy as it possibly can be.  

But there is no smoke without fire. And for me, one of the great ‘tells’ of the Hollie Greig case has been and remains the amount of effort expended to paint it as a hoax in its entirety… 

 

For some it was not enough to debunk Anne Greig’s fantasies… For them there was some bizarre drive to deny the cogent findings of experienced professionals and promote the notion there is ‘no evidence Hollie was ever abused’; something which is quite simply untrue. And this was lead by the very man who promoted the case in the first place. –The very man who drove it in a direction where it was fated to crash and burn. The very man who has a strange immunity from prosecution while another is hung out to dry. 

Rationally, this could only be viewed as deeply suspicious… 

********

An award of financial compensation for suffering criminal injuries is a cold, perhaps pyrrhic thing except in one respect. Dignity! The dignity of having it acknowledged that you have been wronged and that society acknowledges that wrongdoing as fact – even if it is powerless to do anything about it except open its wallet in apology.

 

Ask yourself, what sort of a sick mind seeks to rob a rape victim of that tiny piece of dignity?

For clarity – it is no argument or justification here that the names of those defamed by Anne Greig and Robert Green need clearing; the extended allegations effectively debunk themselves.  And it would, quite frankly, be better and more credible if those who feel these names need clearing were also calling for a full and open official investigation into the case – that surely would clear their names once and for all… 

But of course promoting the myth that Hollie Greig was ‘never’ abused at all isn’t about serving justice or the interests of those wrongly accused… It’s about denying that which was already established by due process… It’s about denying that which is evidenced… It’s about drawing the heat away from someone’s feet…

It is ultimately about robbing this girl of her dignity. – In vindication of what or who exactly?

Now; with thoughts of Hollie’s dignity in mind, and before moving on and examining the case further, there are some very legitimate questions to be addressed as to whether the matter should be so open to public inspection at all; whether - as Greg Lance Watkins puts it -Hollie should have been paraded around like an exhibit in a “Victorian Freak Show”.  

With the irony of that freak show’s former ringmaster complaining about it duly acknowledged, for the record – and I know I’m repeating myself here – no, it is ‘not right’ in my view that Hollie’s right to anonymity as a victim (or alleged victim) of a sex crime should ever have been waived by her legal guardian… The plain fact is it would have been perfectly possible to explore Hollie’s case and the matters surrounding it with the girl’s name and personal detail redacted - and that should have been the case; not only to protect Hollie herself but to protect any possible prosecution. 

Anyone who works with abused people – from the most basic of care workers, clinicians, social workers – all are trained to know why these restrictions exist and how serious they are. The same is true of journalists and media professionals. One of the first things we teach young trainees on the first year of a ‘Higher National’ TV production course is how reporting restrictions impact on their work as media professionals. Certainly, anyone with even semi-professional standing would know better than to publish names of alleged sex abuse victims. 

But then Anne Greig is not a media professional; she is an aggrieved mother. There is no indication in her background that Anne Greig would have known the law in this respect or understood why such restraints existed.  Likewise, Robert Green has no training or education in journalism and is quite frankly something of an imposter. Green is I think guilty of misrepresenting himself. Letters exist that he has signed as ‘lay legal adviser’. Elsewhere you will find him masquerading as ‘Journalist and Broadcaster’… But the truth is Robert Green is no better schooled in the law, journalism or broadcasting than my cat! – Ignorance of the law is no defence of course but it is often a reason why people do break laws! 

This is significant because it’s doubtful if he knew of the loophole that means the pamphlet he distributed in Scotland actually didn’t break the law in naming the alleged co-abused. That doesn’t make what he did right but it doesn’t make it illegal either!  It’s also the case that Robert Green will have reached maybe fifty or so people with his ‘publication’. And interestingly Green seems to be one of life’s more comical technophobes to the extent he would be utterly incapable of having physically contributed to the ‘StolenKids-Hollie  blog…  

I don’t doubt for a moment that Green was at the time supportive of Greg Lance-Watkins’ actions in publishing this material on his blog… “With his cut-glass accent and talk of being educated at Cambridge and Sandhurst, he cut an impressive figure” said Green.  Essentially Robert Green was happily duped – taken in by a goldy-coloured fraud…

‘StolenKids- Hollie’ was absolutely central to the Hollie Grieg Scandal… It was through it that tens-of-thousands of people learned of Hollie Greig’s story. It was through that blog that the wider public learned of the defamatory accusations levelled at Sheriff Buchanan and others…  This was a global publication, something ‘more’ than a few dozen leaflets distributed around the doors. 

Crude and clumsy it may well have been, but it was equally deliberate and effective…

********

Greg Lance-Watkins describes himself as a ‘Commentator and Journalist Blogger’ on his LinkedIn profile and claims the best part of half-a-century’s experience as a campaigner.  Now… There is no doubt that Greg Lance-Watkins, from the very affectation of a double-barrelled name onwards, is a ‘Walter Mitty’ style fantasist. But equally well there is no doubt that his attention-seeking antics have gone on for many years and that they have brought him into contact with the press… 

Anecdotally I’m told that many journalists do recognise and use Watkins for the ‘useful idiot’ he is. 

For instance, writing in The Telegraph of September 14^th 2003, Daniel Foggo reports that “A prominent British Eurosceptic has described the murder of the Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh as the act of a "patriot" and called upon other anti-euro campaigners to be prepared to take similar action against government figures here.”  Foggo goes on to recount the email that Watkins had sent to various organisations which said,   "I do hope there will be patriots in Britain with the courage to deal with traitors that has been shown in Sweden.

"If our corrupt politicians force us to take the same route to defend our economy and country . . . then I suggest the first patriot to take direct action is remembered by putting his or her statue on the remaining plinth in Trafalgar Square."

The piece closes by confirming… “Last night Mr Lance-Watkins stood by his comments. ‘Yes, I do support the execution of elected politicians when they seek to betray the electorate and their country,’ he said.”  -Quite unhinged!

Elsewhere you’ll find the “Sandhurst-trained Chepstow book-dealer” (Who knew there was also a book-dealer training facility in the Berkshire town of Sandhurst?)^* boasting of his firearms convictions and chilling pre-echo of Dunblane where he supposedly planned to kill the headmaster, one “David Granville BUTTERS” – who he alleges abused him as a child when he (Claims to have) attended Kings College Choir School in Cambridge… 

You might be aware that there was some speculation that Thomas Hamilton’s actual intention was to gun down the headmaster in front of the entire school at assembly. You might also be aware that among other things, Watkins had attempted to ‘involve himself’ in some of the post-massacre investigations surrounding Dunblane.  So the connection is there...

And oddly, there is some anecdotal evidence from the early 60s which suggests that Watkins extraordinary boast may actually be true – it seems there was an incident where an, 'obviously unwell', young male intruder was removed from the premises literally by men in white coats. But even as simply a sick fantasy - which is mostly what Watkins spews forth - the parallel is quite chilling; the mind that generated it clearly unhinged, the need for it to ‘reach out’ to Dunblane of all things obscenely disturbed…

For the record, Watkins didn't even manage to get Mr Butters' (the former headmaster he thought of killing) name correct - And, as strange as the stories surrouding Watkins often are,  there is some suggestion that the redoubtable Mr Butters (or someone of a very very similar name) actually ousted Watkins' Father from a post in the RAF. - It's a moot point in many ways; but given Watkins' track-record as a liar and a fraud, there has to be the strong possibility that even his oddly-aggrandied boast of having attended a posh primary school is just another load of bollocks! 

Watkins also boasts of having I having two firearms convictions, one for unlawful possession of a weapon and another for holding for 50 rounds of – highly illegal - hollow point drilled, mercury filled magnum rounds…  I’m reliably informed by a Police Authorised Firearms Officer that the latter means this is no trivial or “technical” matter. – Naturally Watkins is full of fairytale excuses… It was his girlfriend wot dun it! The weapon was accidentally shipped from Africa, the police were “idiots” etc etc etc…  

There is nothing “technical”, trivial or timeworn about these events. Nothing of honour or honest in his account of them either.  The pattern that emerges… Endorsing murder, contemplating murder, storing illegal ammunition… This is just not healthy, not rational.  Then we dig further into the fantasy world that he has created for himself. 

Consider his claim – carried on “the INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance” biography page that he was “Educated at Kings Cambridge and Clifton he went via The Green Jackets to R.M.A. Sandhurst”…  The casual reader might gain the natural impression that here is a man who has attended one of the world’s most prestigious universities… Nothing could be further from the truth…

Having some years ago ‘outed’ him on this particular piece of dishonesty, I note his personal page now has this to say about his educational background…

EDUCATION:
(in date order)
Badminton High School, Bristol
Jordans, Somerset
Hollyhead, Convent Junior School
Kings Cambridge
Clifton Prep.
Clifton College
R.M.A.S. – Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

It’s quite remarkable to note that he is now claiming to have attended a High School before any kind of primary school – what a talented toddler he must have been!  But even more amusing is that he is now – and only now – filing his attendance at “Kings Cambridge” (pupils at the school never to refer to it in this way for obvious reasons) in its proper place…  

“Kings Cambridge”? Really? It seems that ‘KCS’ might have been one of several primary schools he once attended.  It seems, by his own admission, that his experience there was not positive. Bizarre enough that a grown man would include his primary school in his ‘CV’… As one observer put it, this was a “piss poor” attempt at making himself look educated.  Actually, it’s  very dishonest that he should seek to mislead people as he so obviously has.

Sandhurst? - No credible record can be found in relation to Watkins of any service in the forces. There are no 'Gazette' entries for him. Apart from a few odd tales of a storeman with a penchent for impersonating an officer in a sort of 'Percy Toplis' style (which may or may not have been him) - no one I can find who was there can remember or really recognises him.  Perhaps I should have been more diligent in tracking down the Sandhurst book-dealer training academy? Maybe then I would have revealed his background training in stitching-up and covering-up?

Matters like this really do expose the base mettle beneath the shabby plating Watkins presents to the world. But you can fool all of the people for some of the time I suppose… 

********

Watkins inveigled himself into the campaign in early 2009 claiming that he would be able to use his media contacts to assist in progressing it. And it is actually certain that his media contacts were central to a piece on the case appearing in the – now shamed into closing down - “News Of The World” newspaper.  Indeed, it is fairly clear that Greg Lance-Watkins had complete control over all publication in the Hollie Greig campaign until he was ‘sacked’ from it in April 2010…  Even then, Watkins maintained sole control of the “Stolen Kids” blog – the platform where the names of the seven alleged co-abused were published along with those of the 22 alleged abusers and the various extended allegations. 

Watkins has a particular ‘fascination’ for the grubby details of other people’s suffering; particularly that which involves some form of sexual abuse.  – The ‘StolenKids Holllie’ blog was just one of a series that the old ghoul tried to promote. Others included bizarre titles such as ‘StolenOyster’ that sought the gory details of those stalked, abused or raped by a stranger. StolenChildhood was another – masquerading as concern for [quote]  “the families whose lives are terribly damaged, if not destroyed, by what seems to be caring relationships that get out of hand and become abuse or alcohol which leads to rape - as a child or even an adult having sex of any type forced on you IS RAPE” [/quote].  This bizarre flight of warped imagination is accompanies by a navigation pane that includes links to…

“UK STATUTE LAW on ADOPTION, UK STATUTE LAW on CHILD CARE, UK STATUTE LAW on CHILDREN, UK STATUTE LAW on DIVORCE, UK STATUTE LAW on FAMILY COURTS”

With all this reading of “UK STATUTE LAW” he has apparently done is it really credible that he would have no knowledge of “UK STATUTE LAW” on the reporting restrictions that surround the victims of sex abuse? No knowledge of their rights? Is it really possible his ‘friends’ in the newspaper trade would not warn him that publishing the name of a sex abuse victim is – for very good reason – against the law? 

Certainly there is no possibility of him still living in such ignorance – and yet at the time of writing, February 2015, - it is still possible to access, via a blog under Greg Lance-Watkins’ control, the names of Hollie Greig’s alleged co-abused. 

We might start to consider at this point what kind of person or group keeps company and breaks bread with such a dangerous and dishonest fantasist? 

Who or what drives this man’s agenda? Who are his paymasters?  - Really; who ‘hangs about’ with someone who lives in their own little world of violence, rape and dodgy bullets trying to ‘draw out’ the fine detail of abuse for his own sick entertainment? 

Watkins brief – wherever it came from - quite clearly, seems to have been to discredit even that which had (rather inconveniently for some it would seem) been established by cogent examination of the facts… 

But bizarrely, at no point did he actually withdraw the defamatory and illegal material.  

Even as Robert Green was being ‘hung out to dry’ on trumped up charges, Greg Lance-Watkins and Greg Lance-Watkins alone had control over the publication site where the various names and accusations could be accessed!  That is not to paint Robert Green an innocent in all this. – But there is all of Irony, hypocrisy and culpability on Watkins’ part… And the plain truth is that his role in creating the internet scandal that supposedly ‘tarnished so many lives’, when objectively analysed, was far greater than that of the man who actually did jail time in relation to that campaign…

So, returning to the matter of Hollie Greig’s dignity, no…

Greg Lance-Watkins should never have published the names of those twenty-two people he accused of being sex offenders. Greg Lance-Watkins should never have named seven people as victims of sex abuse. Greg Lance-Watkins should never have named Hollie Greig nor should he have set himself up as ringmaster to the Victorian freak show her case was to become… Greg Lance Watkins should never have poured – with obscene fetishistic glee – over the finer and more intimate points of Hollie’s abuse; as he did on his blog.  None the less it is fact that we do have these things publicly exposed, these things were ‘set up’ and promoted for public discussion and pragmatically this is the point we must move on from. 

If Watkins’ lies aren’t explored then he simply repeats them often until they gain the illusion of truth; a trick he seems to have learned from another sociopath.  And part of his ‘problem’ seems to be that he has not the sense to withdraw from a past that is shameful and entirely to his discredit… 

Factually there is not “no evidence” that Hollie was ever abused, as is the mantra of those who doth protest sufficiently much as to draw the light of suspicion on themselves… 

Contrary to what those individuals try to promote, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is not run by idiots. It does not hand out public money on a whim… The CICA is not ignorant of the law, nor inexperienced in its interpretation. And the ‘opinion’ of an uneducated dunce like Watkins on the subject has no grain of relevance.  

Much of the material presented to the world by Anne Greig in her efforts to persuade the world of her fanciful tale is also that which was put before the CICA and, inconveniently for some, it does actually evidence that Hollie was abused. Why try to deflect from that?  

********

To get this particular elephant out of the room once and for all… 

Hollie Grieg has been, as a necessity, highly supported throughout her entire life.  She is clearly not a ‘high-functioning’ Down’s Syndrome afflictee, and has severe functional challenges. That much is a matter of very obvious fact. 

From reading the transcript of the statement Hollie made to the police (the one that Green places so much reliance on) and reviewing video footage of Hollie appearing on various backwater conspiracy theory shows, it is clear that she has very severe problems with communication; both in terms of clarity and cohesion.  The former is an indicator of physical issues she has, the latter her limited intellectual capacity and level. There are various quite valid questions raised about Hollie’s mental age, and there is no doubt that she is a relatively bright young lady given her condition; but honestly I see nothing to suggest  this would be much above ten or eleven years old maybe twelve at best.  

In his zeal to discredit, defame and undermine the unfortunate and vulnerable Hollie, Greg Lance-Watkins frequently claims her mental capacity to be 3 ½ years old! Watkins should never be taken too seriously of course, for the man is a malicious charlatan. But let’s for the sake of argument (as the Hollie Hoaxers are so ‘fond of him and his arguments) run for a moment with his untrained assessment…  Let’s face a stark reality… 

The defiling of a young female afflicted with Down’s Syndrome, and a mental age of 3 ½ is by any measure one of two things. It is either abuse by neglect or abuse by malicious act.

Either way it is a matter of the utmost gravity.  And that remains the case even with the more sensible estimate of her mental age being ten or twelve… Even today (and I think most rational readers would agree) Hollie Greig is clearly a woman incapable of giving her consent to sexual intercourse. Properly protected, such an individual should be inviolate. And yet she is not.  That fact alone – which cannot be disputed even by Greg Lance-Watkins and his ‘Hollie Hoax’ group - is clear evidence of Hollie Greig having been sexually abused. 

It’s really just that simple! 

********

So why doth Watkins protest so much?  And what of the band of his cohorts that emerged from the woodwork to help him rob Hollie Greig of the simple fragment of dignity society was able to grant her?

Who has what to gain from this? Who has what to hide? Who or what are they protecting? 

Let’s recall once again that those individuals that - on the balance of probability – did rape Hollie Greig have their crime so obfuscated that they cannot even be named; they are ‘fireproof’ and cannot be prosecuted for this crime. But what fragility exists in their current lives such that they are panicked by the very thought of an investigation into the secondary and tertiary matters surrounding Hollie’s abuse?  And who commissions these ‘useful idiots’? What possible connection is there to individuals or groups in authority such that they will destroy one man and protect another who is plainly more culpable? 

We know there was no paedophile ring, no Evelyn or Jack Buchanan. The statements Hollie gave the police are so incoherent that there is not even enough to justify interviewing most of those named by her…  Even the two bizarre ‘poster girls’ that the Hollie Hoax group touted about are exonerated by a story that effectively debunks itself except in one small detail – 

Hollie Greig was sexually violated the medical evidence says so and the law has spoken on this...

Again – it’s perfectly reasonable for those who were defamed to try and clear their names.

But why does Greg Lance- Watkins and the strange little knot of individuals that make up the Hollie Hoax group ‘need’ to detract from the fact that no matter how you turn it, that violation was an act of abuse? – This isn’t by any means a moot point.   

And the Hollie Grieg case becomes all the more troubling when you consider how the authorities have rounded on Robert Green – simply the gullible Aunt Sally in all this. That, while the man who actually did the greater amount in terms of promoting this material – and has clearly broken the law in the process – enjoys a very strange level of immunity from prosecution. 

Where am I? – Overcome by the stench of perversion and corruption that follows this case around! That’s where I am! 

* Quote from "Cranks and Gadflies: the Story of UKIP" by Mark Daniel.