9. First Minister in
missing records riddle over Hollie Greig abuse allegations?
The old and worn-out 'Hollie Greig missing records' lie... Robert Green – and his cohorts – would like to mislead you into believing that Alex Salmond, whilst in office as First Minister, hid some material information relating to the Hollie Greig case… But that’s just not true…
This is actually one of the biggest and most-often repeated lies surrounding the Hollie Greig case. Mostly served by a dollop of journalistically incompetent tripe from legal trade magazine 'The Firm' which knows (or should know) damned-well that no Scottish Minister - not even the First Minister - can interfere with individual issues of criminal justice in Scotland.
The real story?
On the 20th of June 2009 Robert Green emailed the
First Minister’s office ‘raising his concerns about the Hollie Greig case. But of course the Lord Advocate is the sole
authority in Scotland over criminal cases – 'outranking' any other minister in that respect. Salmond could not - was not legally allowed to - intervene or
interfere with the administration of justice even if he wanted. Consequently, Green’s enquiry was simply passed
straight to the Crown Office (COPFS) which replied to him on the 23rd of July
2009… Perfectly standard procedure.
Despite having got a response to his email, Green wrote again to the First Minister's Office on the 27th of July, 2nd and 9th of August and the 9th and 18th of September 2009... In other words, Robert Green was making an absolute bloody pest of himself...
Now, nothing - despite the non-educated fantasies of people like the ignorant and rudderless Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy - absolutely nothing changes the cold hard FACT that the First Minister cannot interfere with the routine administration of justice in Scotland; they must and will defer any enquiry to the Crown Office... And one can certainly sense the frustration in the two-page letter you see below which was the COPFS' final response to Green's campaign of letter-writing...
Please note carefully exactly what the Crown Office are replying to here - among other things, Green's (multiple) letters to the First Minister...
This letter is dated November 17th 2009... It's from John Logue, the head of Policy at the COPFS and its closing sentences are quite clear.
The COPFS - which, let's remember (and yes, I'm labouring the point) is the final word on these matters and in essence 'outranks' the First Minister's office when it comes to matters of Scottish Jutice - has made it clear it has answered Robert Green's concerns, stated its position, and makes it very clear that it won't be wasting its time with him again...
So what of these 'missing records'?
It looks as if whatever snowed-under clerk dealt with the original email has simply forwarded it to the COPFS… They didn’t log it, they didn’t keep a record, and that was wrong... It was wrong, but basically what we’re obviously talking about here is a minor clerical error that has absolutely no material impact of any kind on anything…
Despite having got a response to his email, Green wrote again to the First Minister's Office on the 27th of July, 2nd and 9th of August and the 9th and 18th of September 2009... In other words, Robert Green was making an absolute bloody pest of himself...
Now, nothing - despite the non-educated fantasies of people like the ignorant and rudderless Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy - absolutely nothing changes the cold hard FACT that the First Minister cannot interfere with the routine administration of justice in Scotland; they must and will defer any enquiry to the Crown Office... And one can certainly sense the frustration in the two-page letter you see below which was the COPFS' final response to Green's campaign of letter-writing...
Please note carefully exactly what the Crown Office are replying to here - among other things, Green's (multiple) letters to the First Minister...
This letter is dated November 17th 2009... It's from John Logue, the head of Policy at the COPFS and its closing sentences are quite clear.
The COPFS - which, let's remember (and yes, I'm labouring the point) is the final word on these matters and in essence 'outranks' the First Minister's office when it comes to matters of Scottish Jutice - has made it clear it has answered Robert Green's concerns, stated its position, and makes it very clear that it won't be wasting its time with him again...
So what of these 'missing records'?
It looks as if whatever snowed-under clerk dealt with the original email has simply forwarded it to the COPFS… They didn’t log it, they didn’t keep a record, and that was wrong... It was wrong, but basically what we’re obviously talking about here is a minor clerical error that has absolutely no material impact of any kind on anything…
For reasons best known to himself (and he has been rather coy about this) Robert Green wrote again to
the First Minister’s office on the 28th of January 2011 – according
to legal trade magzine ‘The Firm’ he posed “six questions into the manner of the investigation and
handling of the case”… He was ignored.
Now; I’m not about to defend that for a moment…
In fact I have to say that too often injelitant little
pencils-necks forget they are the servants and the public are the masters. And though Green no-doubt was by this time
very well known as a crackpot conspiracy theorist and a bloody nuisance – he at
least deserved the courtesy of an answer; even if it was only to tell him to
‘eff off’…
But let's remember here that on the 17th of November 2009 the COPFS had quite clearly told Green it would not be answering any more of his letters, and this was stated in the context of a letter that also embraced correspondence to the First Minister's office... One theory is that the junior pen-pusher that dealt with
Green’s letter in January 2011 knew his name as a conspiracy theorist, assumed - or perhaps even had a note of some kind to the effect that he was on a list
of ‘vexatious writers’... And simply binned Green's letter on that basis.
Green wrote again on February the 13th 2011. And on the 10th of March 2011 he asked the ministers to carry out a review of their failure to respond… And again he was ignored. And so, quite rightly, he took his complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner…
Green wrote again on February the 13th 2011. And on the 10th of March 2011 he asked the ministers to carry out a review of their failure to respond… And again he was ignored. And so, quite rightly, he took his complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner…
The Scottish Information Commissioner found the office of the
First Minister to be in the wrong, and consequently ordered them to answer Robert
Green… The decision can be viewed here on the Commissioner’s
website:
Now… Here’s the rub…
Recently, two letters have been published online that purport
to ‘prove’ that Alec Salmond is central to a ‘cover up’...
In her response Lynn Forsyth, Deputy Private Secretary to the First Minister
explains that the protection of children is a key priority for the Scottish
Government. She also explains that the Scottish Government HAD complied with
the Commissioner’s request.
She adds that her office had received a letter from
the commissioner’s office confirming their compliance – and the closure of the
matter – on the 19th of July 2011. Malcolm Ogilvy and a few others claim she is lying... So, I actually contacted the office of the Scottish Information
Commissioner myself to check this last point…
They confirm that Robert Green applied to them for a decision on 10 April 2011. The Commissioner found that the Ministers had breached sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and required the Ministers to carry out a review... The Ministers subsequently carried out that review and notified Robert Green of the outcome on the 8th of July 2011...
So, very clearly what's proved is it's Robert Green - and NOT Lynn Forsyth who is the liar here...
They confirm that Robert Green applied to them for a decision on 10 April 2011. The Commissioner found that the Ministers had breached sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and required the Ministers to carry out a review... The Ministers subsequently carried out that review and notified Robert Green of the outcome on the 8th of July 2011...
So, very clearly what's proved is it's Robert Green - and NOT Lynn Forsyth who is the liar here...
The bottom line here is that Salmond’s office did not acquit themselves well… they shouldn’t have ignored Robert Green three times. And perhaps should have shown more respect for the Information Commissioner’s office; for their response to them was not timeous.
But they haven’t hidden anything; Green did get his response…
I guess Salmond’s reply must have contained some inconvenient truth… Robert Green would like you to believe it
didn’t exist… But the plain fact is the Information Commissioner confirms that it does... And it's been in Robert Green's hands for almost four years now...
In fact you can explore the answer that Green got here...
http://itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201101240.aspx
In fact you can explore the answer that Green got here...
http://itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201101240.aspx
The letter to Mr Bailey shown above is dated February the 14th 2014… Just last year. Mr Bailey had apparently forwarded on a letter from Green received by him on the 14th of January. So what we actually have proof of here is that as recently as January 2014 - roughly 2 1/2 YEARS since he got 'Salmond's' response, Robert Green was promoting the lie that Alex Salmond had ignored the Information Commissioner – and this is nothing but a blatant lie! I'll repeat...
The office of the Information Commissioner has confirmed to me that Salmond’s office replied to Green on the 8th of July 2011. And here's the 'belt and braces' proof... Here is a copy of the SIC's emailed response to me...
Dear Mr Quinn
Response to information request:
full disclosure
I am writing in response to your
email of 7 February 2015. You referred to an article published by “The Firm”
and material published on the website “holliegreigjustice.blogspot” including a
copy of a letter from the Scottish Information Commissioner dated 26 May 2014.
You asked the following
questions:
1.
At any time in relation to matters pertaining to the Hollie Greig
case has the Information Commissioner ruled that the Scottish Ministers have
failed to comply with their obligations under sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the
Freedom of Information Act?
2.
If this is confirmed, can the Office of the Scottish Information
Commissioner please supply or otherwise direct me to where a copy of that
ruling is posted?
3.
Is the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner able to
confirm the authenticity of the letter dated 26 May 2014 purporting to have
issued by it?
4.
Can the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner provide
any further clarification or information which would assist in establishing the
overall timeline and veracity of events relating to either matters referred to
in “the Firm’s” article or the undernoted published letter.
I am pleased to provide the
information below.
In response to each part of your
request:
1.
The Scottish Information Commissioner has issued one such decision
– Decision 104/2011 Mr R and the Scottish Ministers. The decision was
issued on 26 May 2011.
2.
The decision can be viewed here on the Commissioner’s website: http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201100721.aspx.
3.
The copy of the letter which you enclosed with your email is
authentic.
4.
The article published by “The Firm” and our letter of 26 May 2014
both refer to the above decision. In that case, a request for information was
made to the Ministers on 28 January 2011. Mr R (the requester) sent a reminder
to the Ministers on 13 February 2011. Having received no response to his
request, he asked for a review to be carried out on 10 March 2011. Having
received no response to his requirement for review, Mr R applied to the
Commissioner for a decision on 10 April 2011. The Commissioner found that the
Ministers had breached sections 10(1) and 21(1) of the Freedom of Information
(Scotland) Act 2002 and required the Ministers to carry out a review. The
Ministers subsequently carried out a review and notified Mr R of the outcome on
8 July 2011.
This is a full release of all the
information you requested.
While we believe we have complied
with your information request in full, you may (if you are unhappy with this
response in any way) ask the Commissioner to review her handling of the
request. If you wish to do this, you should make your request for review to the
Commissioner, at the address below, within 40 working days of receiving this
email. Your request must be in permanent form (letter, email, audio tape, etc.)
and should state:
· that you
are asking for a review of this decision and
· why you
are unhappy with the response you have received.
We will issue a full response to
your request for review within 20 working days of it being received in this
office.
Please contact me if you would
like clarification of any of the points in this letter.
Yours sincerely
George Will
Freedom of Information Officer
Freedom of Information Officer
George Will
Freedom of Information
Officer
Office of the Scottish
Information Commissioner
Kinburn Castle
Doubledykes Road
St Andrews
KY16 9DS
Tel: 01334 464610
Fax: 01334 464611
As a UK citizen you have the right to cross-check what I'm saying with the commissioner; In fact - I absolutely encourage you to do so! Please DO write to the commissioner yourself and confirm that the email shown above is real...
As if trying to 'shit stir' with Salmond's constituency office wasn't dishonest enough, the next step is where Robert Green is shown up and discredited the utterly duplicitous, politically driven, lying bastard he so very obviously is...
The second of the two letters that have been published by Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy and others is from the office of the Scottish Information Commissioner and, carelessly read, you might imagine that it corroborates Green’s fairy story about Salmond… But It doesn’t!
In fact the letter, dated the 26th of May 2014,
merely supplies a limited amount of information that Green asked for… He asked the Commissioner when he himself had sent reminders to the
First Minister’s office. He got an answer on the Commissioner’s notepaper that,
for the record is irrefutably real (see the email above) - but why waste everybody's time asking a
question he must have known the answers to; it's just stupid!
Read between the lines of that letter... And remember that Green presents this to the world as 'proof' that Alex Salmond ignored the information commissioner. Remember too that the Information Commissioner's office is only able to answer the questions put directly to it - it's not able to contextualise answers unless it's directly asked to; as it was in my own request copied above... Green, quite clearly has asked these very limited questions for a deliberate reason...
Why does the writer, in apparent tacit frustration, underline and emphasise that he's writing only about the dates of the reminders? And why is Robert Green soliciting from the commissioner a letter on official notepaper that contains only those dates? Not the full information but ONLY those dates...
Bear in mind here that Robert Green is actually the author of these reminders and will know the dates already...
I say Green's intention here is to mislead…
Green is fully aware that the unquestioning reader - especially the gullible and 'slower minded' conspiracy theorist types - will not notice that this letter does not tell the whole story; and Robert Green was very careful not to ask the Commissioner for the whole story, because he needed just enough of it on official headed notepaper to promote his lie. -
You can fool just some of the people some of the time Robert... But eventually you will encounter someone who hoses down the smoke machine and takes a baseball bat to the mirrors...
Read between the lines of that letter... And remember that Green presents this to the world as 'proof' that Alex Salmond ignored the information commissioner. Remember too that the Information Commissioner's office is only able to answer the questions put directly to it - it's not able to contextualise answers unless it's directly asked to; as it was in my own request copied above... Green, quite clearly has asked these very limited questions for a deliberate reason...
Why does the writer, in apparent tacit frustration, underline and emphasise that he's writing only about the dates of the reminders? And why is Robert Green soliciting from the commissioner a letter on official notepaper that contains only those dates? Not the full information but ONLY those dates...
Bear in mind here that Robert Green is actually the author of these reminders and will know the dates already...
I say Green's intention here is to mislead…
Green is fully aware that the unquestioning reader - especially the gullible and 'slower minded' conspiracy theorist types - will not notice that this letter does not tell the whole story; and Robert Green was very careful not to ask the Commissioner for the whole story, because he needed just enough of it on official headed notepaper to promote his lie. -
You can fool just some of the people some of the time Robert... But eventually you will encounter someone who hoses down the smoke machine and takes a baseball bat to the mirrors...
This is actually evidence of how duplicitous Robert Green can be… And who but a journalist would dig into this and start contacting the Information Commissioner’s office to check the fact?
Robert Green is playin his 'audience' here for the fools many of them so surely are... Green has been ‘punting’ this lie about the Scottish Government and Salmond – against who he seems to bear some sort of grudge – for quite some time. Indeed; it seems to be a pivotal point in the story he tells…
But it’s a lie… Just a lie…
Green got his answer and he damn well knows it. But he’s still prepared
to try and mislead people. Why is that?
So what are these 'missing records'? - None!
Let's recap...
Going back to the 20th of June 2009, Green emailed the First Minister’s
office ‘raising his concerns about the Hollie Greig case. Salmond could not, by law, intervene or interfere even
if he wanted to. Consequently, Green’s enquiry was simply passed straight to
the Crown Office which replied on the 23rd of July 2009… Those are the facts...
"Missing Records"? A log in somebody's outbox at the FM's office
forwarding Robert's email to the COPFS - maybe a few words 'FAO'-ing it?
There ARE no bloody records to speak of! Why
would there be? Salmond's office
couldn't and wouldn't have dealt with it!
It's just that simple...
Robert Green IS lying here...
Not for the first time either... And people are still daft enough to wonder why Hollie Greig got no justice?
