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?

Tuesday, 12 December 2017

30. Thoughts , as the year draws to an end...

I'll start by acknowledging the scale and awkward metre of this unapologetically long and rambling post; somewhere around eight thousand words, most of which, despite my dyslexia, are reasonably close to being properly spelled and arranged. 

You see, contrary to what the intellectual dwarfs of Grammar Nazism might claim, a lack of linguistic prowess automatically equates to neither a low IQ nor a lack of education. Certain neurodiverse traits however (i.e. protected characteristics), do make the subject of grammar mildly impenetrable for some, and the proof checking of one's own work almost impossible.

...Genuine educationalists and most properly educated adults have no difficulty recognising these things of course. Charlatans, wannabes and the infantilised, on the other hand, are easily spotted by their ignorance. And I will say that, if mastery of such things is your primary or only claim to membership of the cognoscenti and/or feelings of superiority over others …then you are quite plainly as delusional as any drug-addled believer in shape-shifting lizard-people! 

I've broken this piece into sections to make it easier to digest; they're virtually posts in their own right. Don't rush, you will probably have a very long time to read it, because there is certainly a limit to the attention I will give these irrelevant distractions from reality now. 

And yes, it's all somewhat incoherent (as I said, rambling), but who has the time or inclination to knock sense into these things save for those with nothing better to do?

...Some people's lives may well be spent night after sorry night banging away at a keyboard in a garret. Living life as a vicarious, unreal affair, wallowing in fantasy and their own filth, chasing the demons of a drug-addled mind or life as a failure. 

Mine is most certainly not!
I'd next like readers to consider few simple, easily and instantly checkable facts...

The last entry to this blog was made around nine months ago. There is also a four-month gap between that and the one that preceded it.  When this blog was instigated in early 2015 there had been at least a two-year gap between that event and the old 'can of worms' blog being hacked and destroyed. 

There are now, including this one, just thirty-one posts here, made over a period in excess of two years. ...With this post, made pretty much at the year-end, being only the second (and probably the last) of 2017.

Factually, you have here the entirety of my public comment on the Hollie Greig case (and related matters) made over the past four years or so. And everything I have written which is (as far as I am aware) still publicly available.

Hardly obsessive is it? 

It’s not really evidence of someone who (as is being claimed by some) is all consumed 24/7 by a topic and ‘just won’t shut up about it’... What’s more, these simple facts irrefutably belie the dishonest claim that I am 'all over the internet' with 'dozens of blogs and comments' about Hollie Greig. 

Nor does this blog evidence someone who is attention-seeking or trying to make a name for themselves or make 'money out of misery'.  And yes, these are all things I have very recently been accused of.  If this is (paraphrasing the conspiretards) ‘all I ever talk about’, then clearly, I have very little to say!

For the avoidance of doubt yes, I am aware that others have put fake material online in my name; but that has absolutely nothing to do with me and is not within my control.

And it's for that reason here is the only place you will genuinely hear from me on this type of topic.  ...On the (extremely rare) occasion I do post elsewhere, that will be in my own name and traceable to an email address at one of my owned domains.

Anything else has nothing whatsoever to do with me.


All of this should be a cue for reflection upon the sheer amount of effort that is put in to trying (and failing) to discredit me.  Why fight a virtually silent opponent, one who does not even bother to walk the battlefield?  - Unless of course the blows already landed by them are beyond reasonable doubt and damaging.

Then there is the nature of these attacks to consider.

Factually, the falsehoods (some fairly extreme and complex) that are constantly manufactured in lame attempts to discredit me are both pathetic and irrelevant to the matters in hand; mere distraction tactics…

But these attacks have, at times , also been violently threatening, and underhand.

Clearly unable to phase me, they have taken to attacking my wife and daughter... Even attacking my in-laws and elderly relatives, people from whom I am, in some cases, practically estranged and who live in the other side of the country. 

Even the dead are not safe from the attention of these gutter weirdos!

I therefore pose a serious question...

If it is actually truth they have on their side... i.e. cold hard realities backed up with facts and evidence... matters that can be prosecuted beyond any reasonable doubt etc... Why do they try to bludgeon their opponents into silence rather than rebut the points they make? 

Why stalk and terrorise young girls, innocent women and elderly people? 

Why do they go to great lengths to fabricate irrelevant, false, ad hominem claims that, even if they were true, speak nothing of relevance to dispel the charges their own cohort faces?  

To be clear on this one... It is entirely legitimate to draw attention to the fact that one or other or several of these people have a history of violence, criminality, drug abuse or - most seriously of all - dealing in child abuse images or sexually, violently or psychologically abusing their own children.  - Because these matters impact directly on the questions in hand. 

Likewise, it is entirely sound to debunk claims to authority such as being a "lay legal adviser", a "broadcaster" or a 'Nobel prize nominee' when the reality is very different and the people behind those claims are complete and utter charlatans.

Matters such as these are not, however, addressed or countered by trying to debunk the proven background of legitimate professionals; nor is it credible to try to compare or equate (for example) the psycho-sexual abuse of a child with anything within the normal range of domestic upheaval...

Yet these are the tactics used by hoaxers. - Why?

We’ve had creepy perverts sneaking around the curtilage of buildings. Heavy-breather phone calls to innocent women as they go about their business. Interference with the studies of a young, female university student. Emails 'from' long-dead Glaswegian gangsters and even a series of ongoing crank calls to our offices.

Working for a living, of course, being anathema to many of these people.

It's a form of terrorism to which none of us will ever kautau, and we do have the law and right on our side. The question that then arises is, why it so vitally important to these people that someone with so little to say about the Hollie Greig case, and others like it, is completely silenced?

Why are they so obsessed?

And for the absolute avoidance of doubt, my questioning the background of particular individuals is not ad-hominem or et seperatim irrelevant. What I call into question are the strange and bizarre and highly relevant deviant, dysfunctional and illegal things they have been involved with...

And of course, there is the money-grabbing...

Unlike many of those who are involved with promoting the hoax elements of the Hollie Greig case, the Hampstead SRA hoax, and many other similar things, I am not an 'e-beggar'; that is to say someone who seeks money for nothing on some vacuous pretence or another via the internet.

Unlike many of those promoting these hoaxes, I’m not seeking to ‘leverage’ this type of case commercially either...

There is absolutely nothing I want to or will sell you in relation to this or any other similarly-themed blog. I seek no byline from this type of case, no status, no fame, fortune nor glory is wanted. There is no PayPal or Patreon account associated with these or similar matters being run by me. There is no book being written about the Hollie Greig case. No film being made, no DVD, no monetised YouTube releases…  

And in direct contrast to others, this blog is in now way, shape or form connected with any individual or group that does beg for money...  Never mind the childishly cheesy pretence of making "no charge"; that really rather falls flat when you're actually part and parcel of a bigger begging machine.

There is nothing 'out there' from me, except this blog and a few reports to the authorities. Everything I have to say about the case (publicly at least) is right here.

I don't even really require your attention as the blog is written purely as a matter of record and to maintain a ‘chain of evidence’.

You might reasonably wonder then what raw nerve I might be ‘tazering’ with the relatively scarce words written here?  According to the conspiretards I am 'nobody', 'nothing', 'worthless' and 'irrelevant'. ...Which is fine with me!

That being the case, why am I clearly of such pressing interest?  I repeat, why are they so obsessed?

Is it perhaps my silence that troubles them as they sit in their assorted garrets?

That, and the simple fact that a number of criminals (child abusers particularly) who have crossed my path over the years, really have wound up in jail?

Now, surely they cannot possibly think that had anything to do with me?

That must be pure coincidence, surely?

I'm nobody!


It is unfortunate that the point has to be laboured... But, contrary to the childish, and really rather desperate lies of Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy and others, I must make it clear, yet again, that I do not post on the Hoaxtead Research blog under any name – let alone half-a-dozen aliases! 

It's interesting to note that this is one Fregoli delusion that seems to be shared by Mad Malky and certain of the Hoaxteaders (that is to say those behind or involved with the Hoaxtead Research blog) alike!  Stupidity, it appears, is infectious!

But the simple fact is that I am certainly none of the characters Ogilvy fantasises about having 'outed'.

Ogilvy, in particular, tries to argue that because people have read and understood the points I make here, and chose re-post them elsewhere in their own words, they must actually be me!  Bizarre! Truly bizarre!  Malcolm illustrates well the long term harm cannabis causes to the brain! Not that he had much by way of intelligence to start with.

But I have  a message for all conspiretards of all shades and sides; I'm not here to entertain the likes of you, and I'm not part of your sad little world! 

I did consider going into considerable detail as to why I hold Hoaxtead Research in the contempt I do. But I quickly realised that would simply make me a party to what it perpetuates. Oh, it may be 'on the other side' of the barney, but then a 'stairheed rammie' does require at least two parties. 

Suffice to say that I do not consider Hoaxtead Research to be a gathering of sane, rational people working towards legitimate ends. Rather, it seems to be a gathering of infantilised, irresponsible and often cruel individuals; who 'meet' there for the purposes of mutual admiration, entertainment and self-aggrandisement.

It's a part of the problem in other words...  One side of a particularly unhealthy coin.

The other 'issue' with Hoaxtead is that I'm occasionally approached by people - particularly locals - who have posted there and come to regret it.  But I'm unsure what reaction they might expect from me other than 'I told you so'?

My advice remains as it has been for some time; don't waste your time trying to introduce reality or informed consensus into the debate by means of that blog, they're simply not interested in any of it; you'll just be 'spoiling their fun' and that won't be received well. 

Simply read their bog for a few weeks and take note of their endless 'showboating', childish 'memes' and rhetoric and the endless hounding of mentally-ill people...   People for whom any responsible adult would seek professional help; instead they shovel coal on the fires of psychoses then dance around the flames!

Does it occur to no-one that even though (for example) a boxing match may be promoted with one competitor as righteous underdog and another as the villain; it's still, ultimately, just two thugs slogging away at each other presented for the cynical purposes of entertainment? 

Neither side gets their ‘purse’ if the fight is cancelled!

In that situation, would you imagine genuine anti-violence protestors would be welcomed by either side?

Whether it's done for 'fun', financial profit, or simple self aggrandisement and ego-tripping... And unlike more frivolous 'alt' subjects, such as ghost hunting, UFOs, or a belief in fairies; child abuse, and in particular SRA hoaxing, really is not in any way, shape or form a suitable topic for trivialisation nor entertainment! And I, for one, won't keep company with anyone who tries!

Certainly, don't under any circumstances drag my name into this farce! For, if you do, you too become part of the problem, and I will apply exactly the same sanctions as I might someone promoting one of the hoaxes that go around.

I sound that warning in particular toward those who are, at any distance, directly or indirectly work colleagues of one sort or another. 

We have issues enough with creeps and perverts stalking the family... Involve my name in this rubbish and, even if you're merely an employee, I will, unapologetically, phone your boss up and tell them why I'm pulling my business from the company you work for - get fired as the result and you have only yourself to blame!   

And no. I've absolutely no compunction about disowning friends or relatives who choose to swim with le feci either!

To be absolutely clear on this, what gets put up on Hoaxtead Research, or any other blog or forum, either in posts or comments, has nothing whatsoever to do with me.

I have no input there, I don't approve of it, and I certainly don't take part in it!


As I have already pointed out, this ‘blog’ is largely silent…

It's very rarely updated. And I hear the conspiretard community would like you to believe their fantasies about my being ‘shown up’ by their lies and fabrications, or intimidated into silence by them.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody's getting 'off the hook'. I remain unphased and actively researching these matters, with a view to taking my findings to the proper authorities for prosecution.

In reality, the relative paucity of posts here has to do with the fact that, unlike them, I’m not attention-seeking, or seeking vicarious validation, but do actually have serious work to do and more pressing calls on my time than to sit around all day pissing about on the internet! 

However, months or even years of 'radio silence' are, it seems, not enough for those with something to hide and something to fear.  They crave attention, and I'm confident they'll get it soon enough.

...Served stone-cold, and when they least expect it by a large man in Sillitoe. The main news is you can expect no hints or clue from me as to what's going on in the background or when that' likely to happen, I won't be warming the plate for you!

The biggest hint I'll give anyone who may be on the radar, and they know who they are, is to pack a bag in preparation for prison; perhaps consider saving everyone time, money and effort by just handing yourself in...

The fact is, that recent (failed) attempts to ‘gag’ me have been both desperate and pathetic; and reveal much of the criminal mentality behind those paedophile-enablers and protectors promoting the hoax element of the Hollie Greig case and indeed the Hampstead SRA and other hoaxes.

Take the ‘cyber attack’ on my business hosting facilities a few months ago for instance. FTP Access was gained to my webspace, a malicious file placed on the server’s root, and some time spent grubbing around the server’s directories.

We know this because quite apart from them having taken down our clutch of family business web sites for about an hour, we can see from the server logs exactly where they went and what they were looking for. 

But, as there is no route in to our internal systems from there (duh! – why, actually, would there be? Not everyone’s so stupid as to be taken in by this ‘cloud’ nonsense!) they got absolutely nowhere; we had the malicious file they placed on our root directory deleted, and the site back up around an hour after we were alerted.

They, inevitably, failed.

I do though place a question in the reader’s mind at this point…

What truth, what justice, what reality is served by such attacks?  In essence, this was a stupid and malicious attack on the way my family and I put food on our table. Unlike most of the hoaxers you see, we do actually work for an honest living. 

Unlike most of them, we're not scroungers or con artists or e-beggars.

The handful of web sites I run contain nothing more than a page or two of simple HTML. None of which have anything whatsoever to do with the Hollie Greig, Hampstead, nor any other related case - so why was it targeted?

What point that I have raised, or claim that I have debunked, was cogently and legitimately countered by these attacks on my family’s livelihood?  What facts that I have presented to the world were in any way disproved by trying to take the hard-earned food off my family’s table? 

On the contrary, they are reduced in desperation to ‘breaking in’ and trying to shut us down precisely because these people have no legitimate position and fear the truth.

Gagging your critics is an interesting ‘tactic’ to be taking for a group that claims - among other spurious things - that they are the champions of truth and justice, and the authorities are trying to gag them because they’re afraid of the facts!

Naturally, we have been in discussion with our hosting company to discuss this breach, and they taken steps to further lock-down the system; for it seems there was a 'back door' on their servers which they have now closed.  For our part we spent half a morning ensuring all passwords were changed and any disused logins were deleted etc.

Job done...

In terms of what these trashy, drug-wasted criminals normally get up to this was quite a 'white collar' style attack. But it's by no means isolated. And their more typical style is far more sinister and tawdry...

For some several years now, physical threats and lame intimidation tactics have been a common feature of the hoaxers trying to shut me up and get the heat off themselves.

Unable to phase me, they've moved on to attacking what they might perceive as the weaker members of my family. Notably, in terms of breaching the peace by causing fear and alarm, they've primarily targeted my female and vulnerable elderly members relatives... 

For example, my daughter – my actual daughter that is – had her university studies disrupted last year by creepy stalkers who deliberately targeted and disrupted online material she was required to maintain as part of the 'marketing' element of the course she is on; this meant she had to 're-brand' and reconstruct the material in question, costing her time and stress.

Another female relative runs a little 'ladies who lunch' type pin money enterprise offering pet care services…  

Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with me save for my occasionally doing a little admin for her and keeping the books; but, that little business too has come under attack.

She was targeted for weird, creepy, 'heavy breather' type crank calls to her mobile phone from some or other pervert; and frightened out of her wits as a result!

So much so that we had to remove all the phone number from her single-page website and she now accepts approaches from new clients only after making quick checks with relevant authorities.

Elsewhere, my attention has been called to the fact to that the deviant Ogilvy has, apparently, been stalking my wife's Facebook page...

Even her computer-illiterate sister was dragged into the abuse. A woman that lives on the other side of the country, who I see perhaps once a year and who plays no part whatsoever in our day-to-day lives.

One can only wonder what point the criminal pervert who did that was trying to make?

Malcolm thinks it ‘reasonable’ to take a swipe at me because my wife has a Facebook page.  But, as much as things might be different in the world-of-freaks that scum like Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy inhabit, no normal man has 'proprietorial' rights over his wife. 

The fact that mine might use Facebook (against my advice) is neither under my control nor remotely relevant to any 'point' (I use the term loosely) anyone might imagine they're making about me! 

All Ogilvy is doing here is proving to the world what an obsessed, creepy, dirty wee stalker he is. And of course, providing further evidence of a 'course of behaviour' that might one day appear on his charge sheet.

Then of course, there have been other attacks and credible threats of harm issued…

For example, I'm very grateful to a contact in the Dutch Police for drawing my attention to the fact that a barely-veiled threat, made some time ago, to 'kick down my front door' (and/or commit arson at my premises) was recently repeated; and I'm particularly grateful to him for taking the initiative to make his independent concerns a matter of record with Police Scotland.

Apparently, some lunatic is willing to torch an entire building with families in it, including disabled children and vulnerable adults, just to make me stop posting here...

I make it clear that we view this very much as a credible death threat.

After all, it's not so long since we did actually have to summon the Police to physically remove one of these stalking, perverted weirdos from the curtilage of the building. And crank telephone calls to my office remain a common occurrence.

Again, as petty as all this is, these attempts at terrorising me and my family do speak volumes about the mentality, agenda and desperation of the people behind the hoax elements of the Hollie Greig and the other similar cases.

By their actions, they irrefutably prove themselves to be low-life thugs, criminals and sub-human scum -- clearly afraid of the truth rather than promoters of it.


If the cap fits, wear it! --The old saying goes...

And, as if proof of the issues raised in Dunning and Kruger's work were needed, the idiots behind the hoax elements of the Hollie Greig case seem to simply not realise that the rest of the world really isn't as ignorant, uneducated or stupid as they are.

Nor does it swim about in its own pish as they do

On that score, it's particularly interesting to note (purely by way of example) that Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy protests so much about the crank phone calls that were placed to my office number back in November 2016, i.e. those that were highlighted (in the last entry but one) here… 

'It wisnae him' bleats the unwashed, feckless, useless ned. He 'disnae hae a mobile' apparently… 

But poor little feeble-minded Malcolm is obviously too stupid to realise that the only person saying it was him is actually himself!

You see, the thing is that you will find that there is absolutely nowhere that I publicly identify the individual(s) I believe to be associated with those calls.  Don't get me wrong, people do draw their own conclusions and that's not within my control…

I certainly didn't say it was him!

Other than the fact that the crank callers are from Aberdeenshire, we do have the mobile numbers used, and can identify the works 'WiFi' system that was abused (theft of bandwidth is a prosecutable offence incidentally) to send other threatening material – not just to me but to others - these matters are publicly tied to no individual…  

Not by me at least.

Whoever placed those calls is certainly a particularly stupid criminal though…

Calling into a modern business telephone system which automatically records calls, the moron actually spoke leaving a readily-identifiable and frankly unmistakable 'voice print' Not bright, not bright at all! - but then understanding technology is not a strong point of the idiot we suspect of this attack.

I would have the reader reflect upon the point that small children usually grow quickly out of the habit of making unprompted protests when faced with the discovery of something they know they have done wrong but have not actually been accused of. The development of what psychologists call Machiavellian intelligence usually sees to that. But of course, that's a part of developing general intelligence, in which respect our subject here is very-obviously lacking. 

It is fascinating though, that Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy effectively self-identifies as the person responsible for these childish attacks; what other logical conclusion can be reached from his player queen style protests? 

Incidentally - That thing flying high right over your head there Malcolm, is a Shakespearian reference…  Not an allusion to homosexuality or effeminacy; which, from what you have written, does seem to be something that worries you. We're not all homophobes nor obsessed with sex.

His, again entirely unprompted, protests in respect of the wee thug we had arrested at our premises a while back are also worth noting...

Who (again, certainly not me) actually suggested Malcolm sent this clown and where exactly is that written?

He 'didnae' send 'onybody', he 'widnae huv tae', bleats mad Malcolm. Comical!

On one level one might surmise that his myopia and self-absorption is such he cannot imagine he is not the only lunatic in the asylum.  On another we might question who he imagines himself to be? And why does he think I would be remotely impressed or intimidated by such scummy low-life tactics anyway? 

Even when I lived back in the Red Road, 'right in the heart of the dark star' as it were, I couldn't have given a flying-fart about the so-called 'Glasgow underworld' on my doorstep… I had no need to.

You see, contrary to what in some circles seems to be popular belief, even if you do have the misfortune to be born into a troubled and deprived area, there is no need or obligation to go swimming around in the cesspool!  - For those with a mind to do so, you can always take the opportunity to get educated and work hard and by this means move up and move out.

So, like any decent person, I just never involved myself with anything the local gangs and gangsters had any influence over and avoided being splashed by the pool of pish they wallow in…

Again, referencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, possessing cannabis (in dealer quantities or otherwise) is no part of any normality I recognise. Nor is trading in stolen goods, fiddling electricity meters, burglary, punting fake MOTs nor any of the other scummy things their kind typically get up to.

These people can wallow in their own effluent If they like; frankly, to me, another dead junkie or dealer is just one less turd fouling up the gene pool…  They don't impress me.

As for 'grassing'?  ...Risible! Thieves think everyone steals apparently!

Unlike many of those who might consider themselves my peers, I am – and always have been - perfectly happy to go straight to the police with what I know and pass them film, photographs and whatever else I have to hand that will bring a crime to prosecution.

I've never been anything other than upfront about that. I’m equally delighted to answer a witness citation and face the court without fear of favour.

That's not actually 'grassing' -because I don't mix or associate with criminals, don't sink to their level and don't kautau to them. In fact, I consider the lot of them on a par with the flies hovering round a piece of shit. So, there is no lack of candour or 'sneaking about' on my part - no snaking about in the grass... I'm upfront about it; if I get a sniff of criminality you can be bloody sure I'll report it! 

Other infantile attempts to try and persuade me that Ogilvy might be a 'gangster', or otherwise 'well-connected' and therefore 'dangerous', are quite frequent too...

Laughable emails supposedly 'from' the long-dead Glasgow hard man 'Arthur Thompson' for instance; many 'warning' me that I 'shoudnae be tangling' with 'certain folk' and that they are 'friends' of members of other known criminal families that have crossed my path.

They’re obviously confusing me with someone who gives a fuck about that world...

However, I would advise the sender of these messages to think on; Mr Thompson (for all he might be reasonably criticised) really wasn’t known for tolerating child abusers, and he still has friends and family who are quite protective of his memory.

One imagines that the Thompson family, and their associates, will not exactly be pleased by 'the old man's' name being bandied about by an individual who, factually, psycho-sexually abused his own daughter. 

 The considered opinion I express - that Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy is a criminal on many levels, some quite serious – is not baseless or unreasonable. Like Greg Lance-Watkins  he does have a 'self promoted' criminal record after all; and his anti-police pro drugs rhetoric marks him out plainly as low-life antisocial scum.

But It would ridiculous to believe he was an individual of any importance or influence in that sphere.  Rather, Ogilvy is now just a sad, lonely, middle-aged lifelong waster with no education, no trade, no profession and absolutely no hope in life; an oxygen thief and parasite, nothing more.

In that regard I suppose he might well be attractive to the criminal cognoscenti as a 'useful idiot'. But perhaps, in terms of his 'thug life' ambitions he ought to reflect upon the alleged fate of Roy Greig. Or more appropriately maybe the lyrics of the old Tom Robinson song 'Martin'… 

Perhaps though even that reference (like the Shakespearian) might be well beyond his intellect, so I'll spell it out…

I note that one comment on the Hoaxtead blog referenced how Belinda McKenzie had used Ogilvy ‘like a piece of toilet paper’ without him even realising. Yes, she did just exactly that - but she’s a relatively refined example of the ‘type’ to do so.

It's quite well understood that the more 'intelligent' among the criminal fraternity routinely manipulate and utilise eijits to do their dirty work for them; often feeding them the delusion they're 'part of the gang' when the truth is they're as disposable as a BIC Lighter and an old teaspoon! 

Those that are at all bright never put their own head in the frame!


It has been brought to my attention that, among the silos of complete and utter pish spouted by the useless idiot Ogilvy, the bloody fool intimates he is considering taking a 'small claims' action against me for the "libel" of bringing the world's attention to the fact he abused his own child.

No – I'm not in the slightest-bit 'worried' about this 'threat'. And I'll give him the same answer I gave his close chum and role model Greg-Lance Watkins a few years ago… 

Bring it on!

For years Watkins, Ogilvy and a few others have tried to make out that the reason they don't sue me is that I'm 'worthless'.

Some individuals have even tried to undermine the business that puts food on my family's table and a roof over our heads; actually working for a living – as opposed to running various scams and living off the state – being anathema to them… 

But that hasn't worked.

As I've pointed out many times before, it's not me who is all over the internet with the begging bowl out seeking money for nothing, nor am I the one whinging about being 'sanctioned' or destitute!

As has been extrapolated and highlighted by others; yes, it does cost money to host multiple websites, pay for multiple landlines and run several vehicles as well as meet all the other expenses that go with running a clutch of small family businesses... And yes, my daughter does attend one of the country's top universities and that's not at all cheap! 

So it's very obvious we are standing on our own feet. Resultantly people are seeing through that great steaming pile of bollocks served up first by Watkins and eagerly embraced by his faithful little lapdog, Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy.

Another issue for these two clown-shoed imbeciles is that the laws surrounding defamation are something I know quite a bit about...

Some readers will be aware of the fact that I am a former college lecturer.

Now, we do know how much the uneducated and those that have failed at everything in life hate ‘teachers’.  Those who know nothing can’t be taught anything for, as Dunning and Kruger point out, they are so often deluded about their own intellectual prowess.

But, for the benefit of the terminally stupid, a prerequisite of being allowed to teach at all is the possession an advanced education, which, in reality tends to ensure one really is better informed than any non-educated delinquent.

Where someone is ‘teaching’ (or more accurately lecturing in) a vocational subject, they must have relevant qualifications and professional experience in that subject

Among my specialities as a lecturer were (unsurprisingly) camera, lighting, systems tech and electrical safety. These were supplemented by entrepreneurial skills, production management and – media law, which includes topics such as media reporting restrictions on criminal matters, the impact of the Official Secrets Act on media reporting and defamation...

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I am a former lecturer only because after twelve years at the chalk face I became disillusioned and resigned my post of my own volition, having had enough of the internal politics within, and political attacks upon, the education system I once held dear...

The wider and relevant point being that, whilst I am not a lawyer or legal expert, I do know something of substance about certain areas of the law and how it works; at least enough to be entrusted by the SQA to teach certain aspects of it!

Returning to the subject at hand then; the matter of a complete ignoramus daring to issue threats of legal action...

SO… It's a 'small claims' action for "libel" is it Malcolm? - What a fool!

For a start if he were just a little brighter, or at least bright enough to 'Google it' properly, the tu’penny-ned Ogilvy would realise that there is actually no mechanism in Scots law that would allow him to do such any such thing. And, as both Ogilvy and myself are based in Scotland, it is Scots law which is relevant here.

For your education Malcolm there is no "small claims" court or process in Scotland per se…

And even that which did exist previously specifically excluded matters such as defamation. The new 'Simple Procedure' has similar exclusions, which you'd know if you were bright enough to actually read and assimilate procedural rules

Something similar is true in the English system.  So, I'm afraid you'll have to 'pony up' in the region of £10,000-£15,000 to get the ball rolling at all Malcolm. 

That's money that (even if you had it) you'd be kissing goodbye, as (like Watkins before you) you absolutely don't have a fucking leg to stand on!  And, as if further indication of how stupid, ignorant and wilfully uneducated you are, was needed Malcolm; there is not even a delict of "libel" here in Scotland.

You can "consider" a trip to the moon in a margarine tub wearing a tinfoil hat if you like little man, that doesn't actually make it possible... 

Besides which, as I have stated quite clearly in the past, I'm quite happy to meet any action sub-human scum like Ogilvy or his friend and colleague Watkins might raise, with a defence of veritas

So to the question, did Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy abuse his own child? – Did he fill her head with deviant sexual fantasies of his own creation in an attempt to frame her Grandfather? I'm quite happy to go to court and point to the balance of probability (the standard required in such a case) evidence that says yes, he did just exactly that and therefor anyone who holds an opinion to that effect has good grounds for doing so.

Ogilvy himself has himself admitted that a police officer 'faced him down' with the fact that he had 'coached his daughter to say those things'. 

And the additional evidence that might be presented in court  will include (but not be limited to) the testimony of the Police Officers and Social Workers who took action against him, as well as the official 'orders' that were set against him

Quite credible I think.

And no Malcolm, there is no great 'Masonic' high level conspiracy against you at all.

Ogilvy claims, vacuously, that he was 'set up' by 'the same crew as were involved in the Hollie Greig cover up'...  Thing is though, beyond the unprosecutable conclusions reached by the CICA, there never was any cover-up, except perhaps by Anne Greig herself. 

The fact is Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy was caught red-handed and dealt with by people who – like his daughter's grandfather – had the entire measure of him from day one. Which, to be fair, isn’t hard. - It's high time Malcolm came to realise that as a particularly stupid and uneducated man, most of the rest of the world really does have a considerable advantage over him.

Perhaps most curiously of all, in establishing exactly what kind of a lowlife Ogilvy is, I'm quite happy to cite in evidence his own but-hurt whining all over the internet about what was supposedly done 'to him'...  

Ogilvy probably does imagine his ludicrous little fairy story (beasties, demons and no doubt lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) to be credible, and cannot see the obvious holes in it. But to anyone of even moderate intelligence, the ramblings of this drug abuser, thrashing about in rejection like a broken clockwork toy, evidences nothing but his own moral bankruptcy.

Consider his homophobia for instance. It is noted he "accused" his ex-partner of ‘being a lesbian’; I do wonder here why he thought that might be in any way a pejorative thing to 'accuse' anyone of?

I note too his online attacks on various other members of the lesbian community; seems poor Malc has a particular problem!

Then of course there is his dead-skull, pot-headed crap about various people being "demons" and "beasties" – drug-fuelled, paranoid, delusional rubbish which clearly evidences how utterly unhinged he is.

And let’s not forget other material such as the video evidence of him pursuing two middle-aged businesswomen in the street basically accusing them of bestiality! 

What a warped imagination he has! What a strange frame of reference.

I mention these things because – and this is something else he has in common with Greg Lance-Watkins – the truth is that Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy, by dint of his own behaviour and track record, simply does not have the reputation of being a reasonable man…

His behaviour is well outside any frame of reference that might be considered within the gamut of normality.

And here's the rub…

There are two conditions which must be met where an allegation of defamation is concerned.  Firstly, the thing complained of must be untrue. Secondly, by definition, defamation is a broadcast, statement or publication which is both false and lowers a person in the estimation of a right-thinking member of the public...

But, by definition 'right-thinking members of the public' are not self-admitted drug abusers who have been proven - on the balance or probability - to be such a danger to their own child they are barred by the court from seeing them!  Nor do they go around  projecting their own deviant sexual fantasies at others.

So, by any reasonable standard it can be proved that his reputation is already so low that it is not possible to lower it further. And on that score I emphasise that I do directly reference Ogilvy's own claims and admissions. - The man is too stupid to realise how he dug his own hole! 

It's to be noted, for example, that video footage exists of Ogilvy chasing two women down the street projecting his sick fantasies of bestiality at them. In this respect, one can only wonder what extreme forms of pornography Ogilvy has routinely exposed himself to that resulted in such thoughts even entering his head?

These seem to me (and I'd be confident of convincing the court of this) not remotely within the gamut of thoughts that any normal or reasonable person might have, or knowledge they might harbour; let alone what might seem reasonable to a right-thinking member of the public.

Quite apart from what was presented being the truth, in what way was Ogilvy's reputation lowered? - How could it possibly get any lower? He is already, demonstrably, the very lowest of the low! Absolute vermin!

So Malcolm… I do invite you to educate yourself. And remind you that a few years ago your buddy Greg Lance Watkins was duly exposed posting much the same rubbish as you are now. It's odd how close you two seem to be these days.

Save your so-called 'lawyers' a stamp Malcolm, advise them to see Arkell Vs Pressdram for further details of my standard response to any 'complaint' low life sewer-scum like you might raise!

I'll close, at long last (sigh!) with a word on relatively recent news...

I watched a BBC TV programme that addresses the matter of a rise in evidence provided by so-called 'paedophile hunters' forming an alarmingly high proportion of underpinning evidence in court convictions.

Like most sane people I feel somewhat conflicted about this...

Primarily, what it says to me is that the Police Service generally, throughout the UK, is failing to do its job; that will come as little surprise to anyone!  Though I know many politicos (including those within the police service itself) are uncomfortable with admitting that inconvenient fact.

What disturbs me more about these 'vigilante groups' - though their effect might be undeniable - is that they are 'glory hunters'.  They don't go about their 'jobs' quietly, or out of necessity, but for self-aggrandisement, peer-group validation and approval.

That, to me, seems just sick in the head...

Why, in the course of a mere glory hunt, anyone in their right mind would want to engage with the sick bastards who groom children online is completely beyond me.

And bear in mind that what they do is actually take part in the grooming activity, albeit 'role-playing' as a child themselves.  The question needs to be asked; to what extent is this all just a ‘game’ to them? – A form of ‘blood-sport’?

I know through conversation with those who work in child protection, that even as a professional police officer, being assigned to such work is deeply disturbing and not an assignment ever taken on lightly. 

Officers are well-trained and supported in this sort of task. They also face careful psychological profiling before being admitted to what we might call a 'vice' unit. But even so, some still succumb to conditions such as PTSD as the result of their work. It's a horrific job to have to do.

Yet these amateur 'paedo hunters' think it 'sport' and something to brag about in the infantilised sewers of Facebook and the like?

This becomes even more concerning when one considers the impact of ‘gaming’ – and the influence of computer gaming – upon certain sections of society.  For those unfamiliar with that (frankly infantilising) world, a Live Action Role-Playing game (LARP) is a form of ‘entertainment’ where the participants physically act out their characters' actions.

Instinctively I feel that there is something of the 'Townsend defence' in all of this; where perverts caught downloading filth claim it's 'for research' or some other ‘legitimate’ purpose.  LARPing  around with paedophiles strikes me as a seriously illegitimate way to spend your time; and more-likely an excuse to find an ‘in’ to that world.

At the end of the day these people are taking part in grooming sessions. It's not their job, they're not educated to understand the issues (legal and ethical) and they are doing it for their own amusement. Even if (and it's a big 'if') that's done with the best intentions, they are doing so without the training, support and professional understanding; which in itself is stupidly dangerous.

Are certain of these people are actually enjoying playing the 'role' of potential abuse victim and are '' by 'talking dirty' to a child abuser?  What if, this is the way of some to find their way inside that circle?  To explore that world? To be in that place? 

Such behaviour is certainly not without psychological precedent...

By way of illustrating the mindset, consider and compare the nature of homophobia for a moment. As Quentin Crisp observed, "Some roughs are really queer, and some queers are really rough."  ...The point of the very word homophobia (and the nature of it) is that it is about fear and self-loathing as projected onto others.  Crisp's observations were that some 'queer bashers' of the day took up that role, in part, to place themselves within the world of the homosexual because that was what they themselves were!

Indeed, I'm led to understand that some gay people still take that view; that most homophobes are themselves 'closet cases'. it certainly makes sense. For, whatever the cultural pull, to a fully heterosexual person, homosexuality is simply baffling and of no particular concern or interest. 

Now, and in the strongest terms, I warn against conflating what I have just written as my equating, even the smallest degree, homosexuality with a sexual predilection towards children. There is, of course, a very obvious difference between what happens within healthy consensual adult relationships and the abnormality of paraphilia. And I stress that the example I cite speaks of an age of particularly unenlightened cruelty.

What I do highlight and compare however is a particular mode of behaviour that occurs where something is, rightly or wrongly, ‘underground’...

As another example; Jack the Ripper it's often opined, developed his hatred of prostitutes from his own self-loathing as a user of them. There is little serious doubt that he was a sexual deviant harbouring a particularly gruesome and damaging paraphilia.

Equally, it can be said he 'hunted' the women he murdered as a form of ritualised 'sport'.

Any reasonable analysis of those crimes must consider the targeting of that particular group. Did he seek to expunge that world because he was part of it, and feared what he himself was?

Let's also consider that in most cases (there are notable exceptions) these vigilantes are not actually people whose lives have been intruded-upon by paedophiles.

In general, they're not people who have discovered work colleagues downloading 'child pornography' or had their children put at risk by such an individual living next door to them.  They're not often people who have been abused themselves either - although sometimes falsely make that claim in self-justification and positional aggrandisement.

Rather, they are people have gone out of their way to involve themselves in that world. And very often too they are people with very unsavoury backgrounds; many being convicted criminals.

Another side of this is that there is no doubt they will be compromising both police operations and potential prosecutions.

In their keenness to achieve 'playground validation’, these characters are often more concerned with getting their 'evidence' online and ‘scoring points’ than making sure it first reaches the proper authorities and goes through the proper processes. 

This can lead to a situation where the defendant's right to a fair trial is irretrievably compromised, which in turn can mean that the guilty walk free on technicalities.

That’s not an empty concern. – It is, for example, to prevent such compromise that the press and media face reporting restrictions; but these people seem at best ignorant of any rules or why there is the need for them. Some are, in their arrogance, quite contemptuous of them!

In some situations, it’s reasonable to conclude, manufacturing such a situation might well be deliberate, and done at the behest of paedophile groups and/or individual deviants in order to thwart attempts to bring offenders to justice.

Then there is the fact that Police investigations often move slowly, silently and with deliberate purpose. ...Even within a police division or section, individual officers may only be appraised of certain intelligence on a 'need to know' basis to reduce the risk of an operation becoming compromised.  The outside world, certainly, will not be made party to what is going on underneath the surface. And the police will almost-always be working towards having maximum effect.

For example, the police might be quite aware of an individual who regularly 'uses' child abuse images and could easily move to prosecute. But they might well bide their time until they can link that individual to a source, and that source to both other users and the production of that material, rounding the lot up with one fell swoop. - Setting a Sprat to catch a Mackerel as it were.

Such operations can take many years before the traps are all set and ready to spring.  Whilst the interference of an amateur 'paedo hunter' might well catch the Sprat, it's more than likely to send the rest of the network swimming back under their rock!

In interview Chief Constable Simon Bailey, the national lead for child protection at the National Police Chiefs' Council, said:

"I'm not going to condone these groups and I would encourage them all to stop, but I recognise that I am not winning that conversation."

Aye, and there's the rub. The statistics would seem to indicate that the reason he is not winning that conversation is that the service he represents is not having sufficient effect. To be fair the reasons for that may be primarily to do with resourcing and beyond any police officer's control... but still.

Rather than encourage such activity, does it not make more sense for it to become illegal for any adult (outside official law enforcement circles) toengage in any such grooming session or activity regardless of what 'role' they 'play' in it?

That would address at least two problems; idiot vigilantes 'fucking up' operations against child abusers; and weirdos who get their kicks, LARPing about, pretending to be kids in online sexualised exchanges! - The latter cannot be a healthy lot surely?