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, 11 April 2015

14. Run little doggy run…



14.  Run little doggy run…

Amusingly, Macolm Konrad Ogilvy re-posted my previous entry on his shill 'holliegreigjustice' blog describing it as "matt quinns final post" [sic].

Final do you think Malcolm? Was this meant to be some veilled threat?  Because if you imagine for a split second I'm about to be intimidated by some pitiful, wasted, non-achieving, pipe-cleaner of an individual you are very much mistaken. My previous post won't be my "final" anything, not by a long chalk.  - I didn't lie down to your Orange Order comrades who threatened me in the street, nor have I folded to their attempts at shutting down my business.

Do you think, little Malky, I'm in the slightest bit impressed by a scrawny illiterate that can barely string a sentence together? So keep on running Malky... You're a pathetic shill a coward and a liar...  And a dirty lously bastard of hell for trying to exploit the RAPE of poor Hollie Grieg to advance your scummy sectarian Little Orange Lapdog politics...


As I’ve suggested many times, those who fail to serve the truth – to any degree – in relation to the Hollie Greig case, serve (wittingly or otherwise) those who abused her.  - And, as the likes of Ian Samson and Alistair Stewart found out to their cost, I've no fear of the large price that sometimes has to be met in order to ensure the child-abusing filth gets flushed into the sewer where it belongs - even if it takes me years...

That’s why, for instance, I ‘took down’ Greg Lance-Watkins… He who walked the walk of Queen Gertrude in that he protested too much to the tune that Hollie Greig was never abused.  – Whilst it’s true that most of the material presented as ‘evidence’ in Hollie’s case almost debunks itself, it is on the balance of probability cast that she was abused. And whether it happened once or a thousand times makes it no more or less serious. The justice system at least gave her the inadequate acknowledgement of having suffered at the hands of a criminal; that tiny fragment of dignity. Why would anyone seek to rob her of that? Unless they served some nefarious agenda?

That Robert Green should fall under the spell of an establishment shill like Belinda McKenzie is unsurprising. Green, unfortunately, is a man who will tie his colours by anyone who tells him what he wants to hear. Had Robert Green stuck to the truth of the matter he would never have seen the inside of a jail cell and we might now have achieved some form of official enquiry into how the system came to fail Hollie. 

We might now be working towards a greater surety that the sickeningly-common, probably familial abuse that Hollie suffered is safeguarded against. And we might have held a better flame to light the lights that would expose the network of pervert-apologists who rounded on Hollie’s case to draw the heat away from it.

Green instead tried to play politics…  And to seek martyrdom and notoriety for himself on the conspiracy-theory circuit. In particular, no doubt under the leading-influence of swivel-eyed right-wing establishment loons, he sought to use the Hollie Greig case to undermine the Scottish independence movement and, in particular, attack Alex Salmond…

Now, I stress that I’m no ‘fan’ of Salmond or the SNP - in fact I'm deeply aggrieved at their record on matters such as the reduction in FE provision and their determination to ensure that the working classes are consigned to stadt-controlled aberplatzen by ending the right to buy one's own home... My personal view of politicians is that they are, in general, the lowest of the low. It simply sickens me that ‘stairheed politicos’ such as Green, Gerrish, McKenzie and Ogilvy would seek to exploit a tragic case like Hollie Greig to serve their cheap political ends.

It’s an inherently cheap trick – but moreover, it’s a sinister one too. Serving as it does exactly the same purpose as (for instance) Greg Lance-Watkins dishonest claim that Hollie was never abused. Serving the ends of distraction from the truth of this case, leading the observer away from (potentially) a network of perverts that might ultimately cause the exposure of other, perhaps more high profile, cases of child abuse, abduction and sexual exploitation.

The politico-sectarian nature of Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy’s incoherent and semi-literate ‘holliegreigjustice’ blog is explored below in post 13.  And his pitifully shallow and politically motivated lie regarding Alex Salmond, and the imagined ‘missing records’ relating to Hollie Greig is disassembled and debunked here…


It’s rather sad that people have been taken in by this lie to the extent they’ve wasted their time, money and energy pursing it, when they could perhaps have been chasing down the real perverts behind Hollie Greig’s abuse.

One such misguided individual is one Scott Pattinson, who recently put the following questions to the Scottish Government…

 “1.       When did you first become aware of the allegations made by Hollie Greig about her being abused by members of a high-ranking paedophile ring in Scotland?


2.         What actions, if any, did you take after becoming aware of Hollie Greig’s allegations?


3.         What action does your Office – or you – intend taking regarding the inaction of your Government’s, then Procurator Fiscal and now Lord Advocate, Mrs Elish Angiolini, thereby placing other children at risk of abuse by this alleged paedophile ring?


4.         What action does your Office – or you – intend taking in respect of Mrs Angiolini proven attempts to cover-up this specific case related to Hollie Greig? You will be aware of the attempts of your Lord Advocate to cover-up this case due to the emails I and many others have been sending to you and copying you into, which contained links to comments, speeches and letters made by Robert Green and his supporters. The information contained in those emails, for the best part of a year, clearly demonstrate the Lord Advocate’s involvement in this most despicable of cover-ups. Please feel free to review my previous emails to you for assistance in answering this point and the previous point.


5.         Why have you not acted on requests for your involvement, as the First Minister for Scotland, to bring a criminal investigation or instigate a public enquiry into the lack of a proper ‘full’ Police investigation in this matter where the witnesses and accused are actually questioned rather than either ignored or left to go about their business, respectively?


6.         When can the Scottish people expect to see their First Minister act to amend the public perception of non-action by you and your Office, which amounts to a dereliction of duty and bringing the reputation of a public office into disrepute?”

The Scottish Government's response was as follows…

Question 1.

While our aim is to provide information wherever possible, in this instance we do not have a record of when the Scottish Government became aware of these allegations.  


Question 2.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) is the sole public prosecution body in Scotland, responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the public interest.  The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are responsible for taking decisions and directing the police in relation to criminal cases. The First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal conduct.  No other member of the Scottish Government is able to take any action either.

Therefore, this is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested in Questions 1 and 2.  


Questions 3 to 6. 

FOISA gives you a right to recorded information which is held by the Scottish Government.  The above questions are not requests for recorded information held by the Scottish Government.  As explained in our response to question 2, COPFS is the public body with responsibility for  investigating allegations of criminality.  In these circumstances, questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not valid requests for the purposes of FOISA because they relate to matters which are not the responsibility of the Scottish Government and we therefore have no reason to record that information.


You may find it helpful to look at the Scottish Information Commissioner’s Decision 194/2011 which is available on her website at: http://itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201101240.aspx. This decision agreed with these answers to the same questions which were asked by ‘Mr G’ in January 2011.

There are a couple of very relevant points to be noted here…  

Firstly that the Scottish Government have now confirmed to one of Ogilvy’s apparent ‘inner circle’ that – as I have pointed out all along – “The First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal conduct.  No other member of the Scottish Government is able to take any action either.”

Secondly – the link in the Scottish Government’s response directs you to matters surrounding the detail of the response from what was effectively ‘Alex Salmond’s office’ back in 2011…  
  
A response that Robert Green has dishonestly tried time and time and time again to claim does not exist…


A lie that is promoted time and time and time again by Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy…

Interestingly, Ogilvy reproduced the Scottish Government's response on his ‘holliegreigjustice’ blog yesterday (April the 10th 2015) – with the annotations I made which exposed the dishonest nature of his claims edited out…  The whole entry has since been ‘taken down’ from public view.  But the incident does prove, in my view, the entirely dishonest way in which Ogilvy runs his charade...

The questions then have to be asked…  What is it about the truth surrounding the Hollie Greig case that Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy fears?  Who’s interests does he serve?  Who is he trying to protect and why? And why is he playing pied-piper, dancing the likes of Scott Pattinson up mockingbird hill? 

I won't hold my breath waiting for Ogilvy to stop trying to lead people away from the truth...  Clearly the man is trying to keep people's eyes 'off the ball'. I'll simply lead you, dear reader, to consider a question...

Why is Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy – just like Greg Lance-Watkins before him – working so hard to keep people’s eye off the reality of the Hollie Greig case? With all roads in the case leading to Portugal, why are we being 'drawn away' from a couple of no-marks holed up in a run-down hovel in the arse-end of nowhere?