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?

Saturday, 14 March 2015

11. Robert Green… A Full Pardon? Don’t be bloody stupid!



11. Robert Green…  A Full Pardon? Don’t be bloody stupid!

Serve the truth without fear or favour or serve the same master as the likes of Greg Lance-Watkins and the Hollie Hoax group.  From where I’m standing you cannot currently get a fag-paper between those purporting to be ‘pro-Hollie’ and their ‘Holllie-hoax’ counterparts. The one thing both groups seem hell-bent on drawing the focus away from is the truth…

The notion that the whole case is an attempt to deflect attention away from more serious matters becomes ever more convincing by the day! 

Why was Robert Green lying about matters such as the First Minister having withheld information from him?  Why is he wallowing in fantasies about being nominated for the Nobel Peace prize?  Why, right up to sentencing, was Robert Green still trying to obfuscate the truth of the Hollie Greig case by trying to sustain the extended allegations?  What was all this nonsense about racist slurs and Masonic plots at his trials?  Latterly, the notion that Hollie’s abuse was Satanic in nature was introduced to the admix; presumably for a bit of extra colour!  

How much further up Mockingbird Lane do these spivs, shills and fruit-loops need to park the Hollie Greig case? 

Some years ago I posed the question; what it is the likes of Greg Lance-Watkins and the rest of the ‘Hollie Hoax’ brigade were trying to draw the heat away from? After all, short of one of her abusers confessing; nobody’s going to jail for abusing Hollie… Why promote the lie that she was NEVER abused?  What purpose does that serve? - That took me down the road of investigating Greg Lance-Watkins, and exposing him as the undoubted Walter Mitty fantasist he so surely is. 

And similarly I discovered much about the other charlatans lurking down the rabbit hole…

It has apparently been confirmed by the court that in future, the view will be taken that if Robert Green ever mentions the words “Hollie Greig” again in public he will be deemed to have breached the interdicts against him.  – Brian Gerrish would have you believe that this has been extended to the very mention of the abuse of anyone; but no reliable court report that I have seen confirms this. Rather, it seems there is some possibility Robert was simply reminded of the standing reporting restrictions that exist with respect to the naming or identification of alleged or actual sex abuse victims, and that he is under particular legal restraint.  – Essentially Robert Green has been warned to stop playing ‘Perry Mason’ around the edge of the restraints that have been on him for quite some time.

I’ll also flag up another issue - 

It’s true that the ‘Hollie Hoax’ group are very much in the wrong. They seem unconcerned with the truth of the matter. Even to the extent they seem hell-bent on inventing justifications as to why there is evidence the child was defiled. - Some indulging in what I’ll call ‘descriptive analysis’ so inappropriate for publication it can only be viewed as a form of deviant pornography in itself.   

But just as far-removed from the reality of the situation is the nonsense that’s being promoted by many of those who purport to be ‘pro Hollie’ and/or anti child abuse.  Much of this tripe is entirely political in nature and usually alloyed to the more swivel-eyed and sectarian factions of the unionist movement. – Factions that can themselves be linked to serious crime, disorder and sexual deviancy; especially paedophilia.  

I don’t think there is any serious doubt that the Hollie Greig case has and is being used by Little Orange Lapdogs to damage the SNP and the independence cause generally. Virtually all we ‘hear’ in relation to the authorities’ handling of the matter is nonsense about Alex Salmond and regurgitated attacks on the SNP from the unionist ‘alternative press’. –  And yet what is supposed to be at the heart of the matter? – A sexually-abused girl that the system failed… She seems to figure nowhere on their radar so long as some cheap and generally vacuous political point can be scored…

Why is that?  

While these clowns are busy utilising Hollie’s abuse to target people they simply don’t like, the real miscreants behind the failings that caused justice to fail Hollie, and Robert Green to be persecuted are having their purposes fully met. And what’s more they are having their position bolstered…

And then there is the latest tune from 'fruit-loop central'… A full pardon for Robert Green?  Why? On what possible rational basis?

His latest conviction rests on a simple and admitted fact… George Robert Green decided to piss from a great height on a court order legitimately obtained against him...  You can't do that and expect to get away with it! - That simple! 

It's claimed that this time around 90% of the charges were dropped and therefore the prosecution's case was weak... Were they really?  That sounds like bollocks to me; just as the earlier claim that Green didn't now what he was being charged with was bollocks - (if that had been true any third-year law student could have had the trial stopped and the case thrown out).  But then Robert Green does have a habit of treating all his audience as if they button up the back - and some do; but not all!

But so what? Even it were true that 90% of the instances quoted against him were withdrawn from evidence it’s irrelevant because a conviction is a conviction - even on one count… Would the imbeciles chanting this mantra be so keen on exonerating a rapist who was originally charged with buggering ten kiddies but admitted to one and was let off the hook for the other nine? 

It is fact that much of the material Green was called to book on was technically published by other people... But how much of that was at Green’s behest?  And are those brain-dead and very often (it's alleged) drug-addled wasters actually aware of how close they themselves came to being arrested and charged?  The fact is the interdicts against Green affect both him and anyone working on his behalf or instruction!  And that little word ‘or’ is quite important…  For the benefit of the terminally-stupid it does not matter that Robert Green didn’t actually tell you to publish his tripe. Acting on his behalf is enough to see yet another clown-prince of the conspiracy theory circuit jailed… 

Take the old "Free Robert Green" site for instance...   Now defunct... Supposedly on the basis that it might harm Green himself... Is it really beyond the wit of some people to realise that its owners were quietly advised that it might breach the interdicts and leave - not Green - BUT THEMSELVES open to prosecution?  - The claim that it was taken down to reduce the risk to Green is really an insult to the intelligence. The very fact it can be proved who the site registrant is - It's registered to a house in Blaenavon associated with a 'fringe politician' - means THAT individual rather than Green is 'in the frame'...


Green’s jailing - the extreme and inappropriate actions of the Scottish authorities to what is, after all, just a case of a loopy conspiracy theorist has brought (quite legitimately) some serious negative PR attention to the COPFS. And that is really all  that has kept these eijits from ‘the knock’ already!! 

So, what basis is there to ‘pardon’ someone who has admitted the crime?

Some might argue that Buchanan and in particular Angiolini should not have been able to obtain the interdict and non-harassment order against Green in the first place.  – And I might agree were it not for the fact that the claims against Buchanan are so vacuous they virtually debunk themselves. Although at the time before we knew what we know now of why Green was under charge it seemed a troublesome move – Buchanan’s interdict is watertight.  

Angiolini’s is even more interesting…  Whilst overall (as a private individual) Buchanan’s move to interdict Green was right and proper; as an officer of the crown it does smack of gagging. At the time I have taken and maintain the view that it would have been better if Buchanan had gone for a defamation suit; because that way Green would have had the opportunity to have his assertions against Buchanan tried in court – that or been forced to formally retract them.  ‘Technically sound’ or not, at the time Scotland was left looking like something of a tin-pot dictatorship…  But that rather changed with Angiolini’s action… 


The plain truth is that Lord Bannatyne’s consideration of Angiolini’s case does have many of the important characteristics and features of a defamation case.  Here, for Robert Green, was the opportunity missing from Buchanan’s action; to present the facts in a court of law. Here was the self-described "Lay Legal Adviser's" opportunity to exhibit his 'learning and skills' with respect to the law, and utilise the veritas of his 'well researched' position in support of his claims… 

But Green did no such thing… He floundered foolishly presenting not one serious shred of evidence in his own defence. This arrogant barrack-room lawyer, having left his own counsel with no real alternative but to drop him, bleated childishly about how unfair it was that he, ‘ a foreigner’ should be tried under Scots law of which he is ignorant…

Ignorance of course is no defence. But he’d have been less ignorant if he’d taken my advice back in 2010 and got himself a copy of McNaes… And know that ‘English’ law is not so very-far removed from Scots in terms of the offence he was accused of.  

Angiolini – quite rightly – got her non-harassment order… Why wouldn’t she? Green had offered the court absolutely no reason not to grant it! He offered no defence… 

This was also true of events that had seen him jailed in the first place… In the run-up to his jailing Green was coy and deceptive as to the exact nature of the charges he faced (as he has been in this most recent debacle).  He went to jail because – Instead of offering any kind of cogent or relevant defence – he tried to ‘showboat’ at his trial; turning the entire thing into a complete farce! I seem to recall remarking at the time that had the judge been Green’s own Mother, legally, she’d have been left with absolutely no choice but to jail the damned fool…  And I’ll remind readers here that in the time leading up to his first jail sentence – and since -  Green and his cohorts have wilfully mislead the public as to why he was behind bars…

Robert Green hasn’t ‘helped’ the victims of sexual abuse in any way, shape or form… Quite the reverse. He’s armed those who – like Elish Angiolini – would like those outside her circle; her fiefdom, to be casually dismissed as nutcases and conspiracy theorists. He’s contributed to a situation where people like Jimmy Savile’s victims are routinely labelled as ‘attention-seekers’ and ‘gold-diggers’…   

There remains a legitimate, logical case to argue in favour of holding a formal review of the Hollie Greig case. Of seeking a formal investigation into it and explaining clearly and finally to the public how the system came to fail her... And explaining how things have changed to protect people like Hollie in the future…    But that argument is lost in the black noise created by Robert Green and his cohorts…   

True, the punishment he has faced is cruel and unusual and excessive; out of all proportion to his crime. And that lights the light of suspicion that yes – ‘something’ is not right here. 

But Robert Green?  He is no innocent – not by a country mile!