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!
Remember?
--------
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.
