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 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...

And, importantly, 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...

Also in stark contrast to many others is the fact that 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... Nor for that matter any similar case.

I am not here to promote vapid conspiracy theories! - And glad to say that certain perverts who have crossed me in the past actually have gone to jail for their crimes against children.

And please note carefully, 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 seeing those who abuse children brought to justice through the courts. And that does seem to scare certain people - mainly criminals and perverts - out of their wits...

What have they got to hide?

Saturday, 28 February 2015

8. Elish Angiolini – Cuckoo in the nest…

8. Elish Angiolini – Cuckoo in the nest…

Depending on who you talk to anything from half-a-million to two pounds of public money was spent pursuing Green; and his treatment does seem to have been unusually harsh, certainly unreasonable and pretty-much pointless. So why spend that amount of public money giving Green a ‘kicking’? 

One simple possibility is that attacks made by various individuals on the Scottish justice system in relation to the Hollie Greig case may have been politically motivated; to the great convenience of some.  That the agenda and the brief was (and remains) to try and damage the Scottish independence movement…  That is stated not in defence of the Scottish justice system or the Scottish authorities generally; for they are rotten and corrupt to the core; that much is plain.

But one might reasonably wonder what sort of ‘dirty trick players’ would envision such a scheme… And for the answer to that question you should look no further than Westminster itself, for until recently it was they and not the Scottish Government that granted the fiefdom of Scottish justice. And let’s not forget, it is Westminster that seems to be at the heart of the United Kingdom’s problem with establishment paedophilia.  

Much political capital has been made out of the Hollie Greig case – and certain politicos do actively try to promote the lie that it is “Salmond’s shame”. Factually, Salmond could take nothing to do with the matter...  To the extent that if you write to the First Minister's office about it they will pass the letter straight to the COPFS virtually unread.

The Hollie Greig case, throughout the run up to Scottish independence referendum, was actively leveraged by political animals – and I find it quite frankly revolting that people like Robert Green, Brian Gerrish and Belinda McKenzie should seek that to defend that which they themselves tell us themselves stinks to high heaven…  For the benefit of those of a poor educational level, Great Britain and the United Kingdom are two different things.  And the Palace of Westminster - paedophile central as some call it - sits at the rotting heart of the latter. Risisble that McKenzie for instance should, prior to the referendum, have spoke about still being able to protect British children...   Well for a start post-independence Scots would not cease to be British. And it's not as if scandals such as Smith, Savile and Kincora say anything positive about the 'British' establishment's capacity to protect children!

Then there are the pitiful little Orange (bargain basement Masons) lapdogs bowing and scraping obediently to the butcher’s apron…  And it’s these clowns that present the most obvious lies… 

Salmond’s shame? Really? - To their own shame that they're promoting a deliberate lie to advance the very system that nurtures perverts...

If these ignoramuses (and their hingers-oan) were a little brighter they’d know that the First Minister really has no power to intervene in the administration of justice.  – I’ll tackle their biggest lie – that of Salmond supposedly having been ‘found guilty’ by the information commissioner of some imagined crime – in my next post. But I’ll start off with the truth about the Lord Advocate…

The Lord Advocate of Scotland is appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the First Minister, with the (nominal) agreement of the Scottish Parliament. The post has traditionally and until recently been a blatantly political one; in the grant and favour of whatever political party was in power.  Thus, prior to the restoration of the Scottish Parliament the appointment came directly from London. Post 1999 and up until May 2011, as Scottish Labour have never been anything other than a puppet ‘branch office’ office of the London party, it is therefore from London that the orders came in terms of who held the position…

For those who are a little confused at this point by the fact that Scotland has had an SNP, not Labour Government since 2007, some appreciation of the history surrounding the tenure of Elish Angiolini is essential... 

She was appointed Solicitor General for Scotland on the recommendation of Labour First Minister Jack McConnell in 2001 and it was of course also McConnell who nominated Angiolini for the post of Lord Advocate in 2006. At that time it was fairly obvious that Scottish Labour were on their way out; this was therefore some eight months before his Westminster-branch office of the London Labour party was predictably relieved of its duties by the Scottish people…

The politicised nature of the Lord Advocate’s post has always been contentious and objectionable.  And Salmond had, pre-election, committed to "de-politicise" it; McConnel was very much aware of this. And so he selected a particularly contentious Lord Advocate knowng full-well what an effective plant she would be for the first few years of SNP tenure.

True to his word, Salmond did de-politicise the post. For instance, from 1999 until 2007, the Lord Advocate attended the weekly Scottish Cabinet meetings – he ended that practice, and a few others! 

Salmond was left with a political problem in the shape of Angiolini though.

To be clear the Lord Advocate is actually a Minister of the Scottish Government.... They are principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government and have influence upon it.  But decisions by them about criminal prosecutions and the investigation of deaths are taken independently of any other person.  Essentially the Lord Advocate has a fiefdom in the shape of control over the Scottish Justice system. They are an unelected person sat at the heart of government. And they are realistically answerable to no-one in terms of the practical administration of the law in Scotland.  

Those who imagine the First Minister or even the Justice Secretary have command and control over the Lord Advocate are sadly mistaken… Those who promote this myth really are deeply dishonest – or pitifully stupid.

Why did Salmond not sack Angiolini you may very well ask? Politics!

The (some might argue; I most certainly would!) sock-puppet Lord Advocate of a sock-puppet Labour party in opposition could not be seen as a good fit for the SNP government. But of course having officially de-politicised the post it would have opened the incoming SNP government to charges of hypocrisy to oust the incumbent Lord Advocate on the basis of her political affiliation. Further, politically insensitive too since she was the first ‘working class’ woman in post and had been there for such a short length of time!  

Certainly, Salmond was stuck with Angiolini, not enamoured of her. And if there's a smoking gun here it's pointed straight down at his foot!

Effectively he was in the uncomfortable position of having a political cuckoo in the nest, and one he could not easily undermine or get rid of.  ‘Scotland’s Shame’, or rather Alex Salmond’s shame is that instead of having the strength of character and integrity to rid the country of this vile political plant and ‘flush out’ the culture of corruption,  he played politics and (publically at least) went through the motions of supporting her and leaving her to it.  

Decades of political bias within The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) had ensured a ‘service’ really not fit for purpose.  The Scottish legal system is degenerate to the degree that it has (as I’ve said before) more in common with a Poker game than it has the administration of justice.  You can be fairly sure that the make-up of those that held positions of responsibility within the COPFS will have been and to some extent still is highly politicised and very much under the control of the pro-Westminster parties.  

For evidence of this you need look no further than the disgracefully ‘flameproof’ nature of Scotland’s Labour politicians.  Contrast and compare the treatment of the quixotic Robert Green with that of people like Steven Purcell, former leader of Glasgow City Council. Or the current City Council leader Gordon Matheson, who in late 2012 was caught by the police allegedly performing an oral sex act with an undisclosed 38 year old male in a public place.  

The stench of political cronyism hangs heavy in the air. As does the empty echo of justice not served. In both cases the COPFS decided not to prosecute their friends; you know Robert’s story!

Clearly a root-and-branch reform of the Scottish justice system was, and remains necessary. But politically this is a very tall order. Just flushing out the rot sounds like a great idea. But publically ‘outing’ each and every rotten apple within the current system would further undermine public confidence in it. There would no doubt be many challenges to past convictions with a percentage emerging as unsafe and much public time and money wasted revisiting safe convictions.  And then there is the problem of finding suitable replacements for these rotten apples – good ones don’t grow on trees! The costs would be huge. 

Depoliticising the Lord Advocate post was clearly a move in the right direction.  But if was nowhere near far enough.  And much as the political reasons for leaving Angiolini in post are clear enough, this was for Alex Salmond a huge mistake. For in doing so he actually armed some of those who would eventually stand against him, and the ambition of freeing Scotland from the perverted and corrupt grip of Westminster.

It should be understood that the law (like government itself) is a machine of immense inertia. Once it is set running it will complete its cycle and cannot easily be interrupted. Thus the incoming incumbent to the post of Lord Advocate is often left to face the consequences of their predecessor’s actions. To undermine them is to undermine the post itself, and this was particularly difficult for the individual that followed Angiolini, Frank Mulholland. 


A white paper for the proposed Scottish Referendum Bill was published, on 30 November 2009. And, although that bill was eventually rejected by MSPs it was fairly clear by mid-2010 that the Scottish people would again return an SNP government – with a renewed commitment to a referendum.   

Angiolini's coat was now on a very shaky peg...  With no prospect of her political kin regaining power at Holyrood she had to look to her exit strategy. Because there would be no prospect of her staying on. And one might reasonably speculate that here exit might not have been pretty.

Rumour – or ‘open secret’ if you prefer – has it that Salmond’s dissatisfaction with Angiolini was well known; it was certainly clear that she could not survive a second term of SNP government, particularly one that was moving towards an independent Scotland. Indeed, there is a strong possibility that she would have no significant place in an independent Scotland. Ever the egotist, Angiolini it would seem did not relish the prospect of being put out to grass. 

We have then a situation here then where an outgoing political cuckoo in the nest had both the opportunity and motivation to cause mayhem.  

With the writing for her political overlords once again on the wall Angiolini announced in October 2010 that she would resign as Lord Advocate the following May, fleeing the political nest and, as cuckoos do, leaving quite a lot of damage behind. One (to be fair minor) example of which being the fact that Robert Green was by this time well on his way to jail... 

Angiolini was in-post as Lord Advocate for just four-and-a-half years. I don’t entirely agree with Robert Black QC who said her tenure was a “disastrous experiment” – for he also went on to bemoan the fact that “In the past, the law officers have traditionally come from the ranks of the practising Bar and were supporters of the governing party… 

Angiolini’s tenure was (in part) disastrous because she was a political sock-puppet; although Black may have an unintentional point in that she was a sock-puppet for a party that was seeking to undermine the governing party. As for the “ranks of the practising Bar”?  - Seriously?  I’m afraid we can have no confidence in an ‘old boy’s club’ legal establishment that long-since gave up practicing law for the playing of games!

It is irrefutable fact that despite Salmond’s efforts, the Scottish justice system was a political fiefdom – and the stronghold of Scottish Labour.  Salmond would not and simply could not interfere in any way shape or form with its machinations. His Justice Secretary, the pointless Kenny McAskill was never anything more than a ‘Stookey Bill’.  The perception however (call it a smoking hole in his foot) created by Salmond was that the post was apolitical and had the full confidence of the Scottish Government.  Much as I understand the political reasoning behind it, Salmond was an utter fool to leave Angiolini in post. 

So, is it really just utter stupidity that causes some not to attack the man who would have torn the heart from a paedophile-infested Palace of Westminster? Or is it vested interest in deflecting attention from the real miscreants and projecting it onto others? 
As it stands I’m afraid I can only call ‘SHILL’ on most of those currently purporting to act in Hollie Greig’s interests…