11. Robert
Green… A Full Pardon? Don’t be bloody stupid!
Serve the truth without fear or favour or serve the same
master as the likes of Greg Lance-Watkins and the Hollie Hoax group. From where I’m standing you cannot currently get
a fag-paper between those purporting to be ‘pro-Hollie’ and their
‘Holllie-hoax’ counterparts. The one thing both groups seem hell-bent on
drawing the focus away from is the truth…
The notion that the whole case is an attempt to
deflect attention away from more serious matters becomes ever more convincing
by the day!
Why was Robert Green lying about matters such as the First
Minister having withheld information from him?
Why is he wallowing in fantasies about being nominated for the Nobel
Peace prize? Why, right up to
sentencing, was Robert Green still trying to obfuscate the truth of the Hollie
Greig case by trying to sustain the extended allegations? What was all this nonsense about racist slurs
and Masonic plots at his trials? Latterly,
the notion that Hollie’s abuse was Satanic in nature was introduced to the
admix; presumably for a bit of extra colour!
How much further up Mockingbird Lane do these spivs, shills
and fruit-loops need to park the Hollie Greig case?
Some years ago I posed the question; what it is the likes of
Greg Lance-Watkins and the rest of the ‘Hollie Hoax’ brigade were trying to
draw the heat away from? After all, short of one of her abusers confessing;
nobody’s going to jail for abusing Hollie… Why promote the lie that she was
NEVER abused? What purpose does that
serve? - That took me down the road of investigating Greg Lance-Watkins, and
exposing him as the undoubted Walter Mitty fantasist he so surely is.
And similarly I discovered much about the other charlatans lurking
down the rabbit hole…
It has apparently been confirmed by the court that in future,
the view will be taken that if Robert Green ever mentions the words “Hollie
Greig” again in public he will be deemed to have breached the interdicts
against him. – Brian Gerrish would have
you believe that this has been extended to the very mention of the abuse of
anyone; but no reliable court report that I have seen confirms this. Rather, it
seems there is some possibility Robert was simply reminded of the standing
reporting restrictions that exist with respect to the naming or identification
of alleged or actual sex abuse victims, and that he is under particular legal
restraint. – Essentially Robert Green
has been warned to stop playing ‘Perry Mason’ around the edge of the restraints
that have been on him for quite some time.
I’ll also flag up another issue -
It’s true that the ‘Hollie Hoax’ group are very much in the
wrong. They seem unconcerned with the truth of the matter. Even to the extent
they seem hell-bent on inventing justifications as to why there is evidence the
child was defiled. - Some indulging in what I’ll call ‘descriptive analysis’ so
inappropriate for publication it can only be viewed as a form of deviant
pornography in itself.
But just as far-removed from the reality of the situation is
the nonsense that’s being promoted by many of those who purport to be ‘pro
Hollie’ and/or anti child abuse. Much of
this tripe is entirely political in nature and usually alloyed to the more
swivel-eyed and sectarian factions of the unionist movement. – Factions that can themselves be linked
to serious crime, disorder and sexual deviancy; especially paedophilia.
I don’t think there is any serious doubt that the Hollie
Greig case has and is being used by
Little Orange Lapdogs to damage the SNP and the independence cause generally.
Virtually all we ‘hear’ in relation to the authorities’ handling of the matter is
nonsense about Alex Salmond and regurgitated attacks on the SNP from the
unionist ‘alternative press’. – And yet
what is supposed to be at the heart of the matter? – A sexually-abused girl
that the system failed… She seems to figure nowhere on their radar so long as
some cheap and generally vacuous political point can be scored…
Why is that?
While these clowns are busy utilising Hollie’s abuse to
target people they simply don’t like, the real miscreants behind the failings
that caused justice to fail Hollie, and Robert Green to be persecuted are
having their purposes fully met. And what’s more they are having their position
bolstered…
And then there is the latest tune from 'fruit-loop central'… A full pardon for Robert Green? Why? On what possible rational basis?
His latest conviction rests on a simple and admitted fact…
George Robert Green decided to piss from a great height on a court order
legitimately obtained against him... You can't do that and expect to get away with it! - That simple!
It's claimed that this time around 90% of the charges were dropped and therefore the prosecution's case was weak... Were they really? That sounds like bollocks to me; just as the earlier claim that Green didn't now what he was being charged with was bollocks - (if that had been true any third-year law student could have had the trial stopped and the case thrown out). But then Robert Green does have a habit of treating all his audience as if they button up the back - and some do; but not all!
But so what? Even it were true that 90% of the instances quoted against him were withdrawn from evidence it’s irrelevant because a conviction is a conviction - even on one count… Would the imbeciles chanting this mantra be so keen on exonerating a rapist who was originally charged with buggering ten kiddies but admitted to one and was let off the hook for the other nine?
But so what? Even it were true that 90% of the instances quoted against him were withdrawn from evidence it’s irrelevant because a conviction is a conviction - even on one count… Would the imbeciles chanting this mantra be so keen on exonerating a rapist who was originally charged with buggering ten kiddies but admitted to one and was let off the hook for the other nine?
It is fact that much of the material Green was called to book
on was technically published by other people... But how much of that was at Green’s
behest? And are those brain-dead and
very often (it's alleged) drug-addled wasters actually aware of how close they themselves came to being arrested and charged? The fact is the interdicts against Green
affect both him and anyone working on his
behalf or instruction! And that
little word ‘or’ is quite important… For
the benefit of the terminally-stupid it does not matter that Robert Green
didn’t actually tell you to publish his tripe. Acting on his behalf is enough
to see yet another clown-prince of the conspiracy theory circuit jailed…
Take the old "Free Robert Green" site for instance... Now defunct... Supposedly on the basis that it might harm Green himself... Is it really beyond the wit of some people to realise that its owners were quietly advised that it might breach the interdicts and leave - not Green - BUT THEMSELVES open to prosecution? - The claim that it was taken down to reduce the risk to Green is really an insult to the intelligence. The very fact it can be proved who the site registrant is - It's registered to a house in Blaenavon associated with a 'fringe politician' - means THAT individual rather than Green is 'in the frame'...
Take the old "Free Robert Green" site for instance... Now defunct... Supposedly on the basis that it might harm Green himself... Is it really beyond the wit of some people to realise that its owners were quietly advised that it might breach the interdicts and leave - not Green - BUT THEMSELVES open to prosecution? - The claim that it was taken down to reduce the risk to Green is really an insult to the intelligence. The very fact it can be proved who the site registrant is - It's registered to a house in Blaenavon associated with a 'fringe politician' - means THAT individual rather than Green is 'in the frame'...
Green’s jailing - the extreme and inappropriate actions of the Scottish authorities to what is, after all, just a case of a loopy conspiracy theorist has brought (quite
legitimately) some serious negative PR attention to the COPFS. And that is really all that has kept these eijits
from ‘the knock’ already!!
So, what basis is there to ‘pardon’ someone who has admitted
the crime?
Some might argue that Buchanan and in particular Angiolini
should not have been able to obtain the interdict and non-harassment order
against Green in the first place. – And
I might agree were it not for the fact that the claims against Buchanan are so
vacuous they virtually debunk themselves. Although at the time before we knew what we know now of why Green was under charge it seemed a troublesome move – Buchanan’s interdict is
watertight.
Angiolini’s is even more interesting… Whilst overall (as a private individual) Buchanan’s
move to interdict Green was right and proper; as an officer of the crown it
does smack of gagging. At the time I have taken and maintain the view that it would have been
better if Buchanan had gone for a defamation suit; because that way Green would
have had the opportunity to have his assertions against Buchanan tried in court
– that or been forced to formally retract them. ‘Technically sound’ or not, at the time
Scotland was left looking like something of a tin-pot dictatorship… But that rather changed with Angiolini’s
action…
The plain truth is that Lord Bannatyne’s consideration of
Angiolini’s case does have many of
the important characteristics and features of a defamation case. Here, for Robert Green, was the opportunity
missing from Buchanan’s action; to present the facts in a court of law. Here was
the self-described "Lay Legal Adviser's" opportunity to exhibit his 'learning and skills' with respect to the law, and utilise the veritas of his 'well researched' position in support of his claims…
But Green did no such thing… He floundered foolishly presenting not one serious shred of evidence in his own defence. This arrogant barrack-room lawyer, having left his own counsel with no real alternative but to drop him, bleated childishly about how unfair it was that he, ‘ a foreigner’ should be tried under Scots law of which he is ignorant…
But Green did no such thing… He floundered foolishly presenting not one serious shred of evidence in his own defence. This arrogant barrack-room lawyer, having left his own counsel with no real alternative but to drop him, bleated childishly about how unfair it was that he, ‘ a foreigner’ should be tried under Scots law of which he is ignorant…
Ignorance of course is no defence. But he’d have been less
ignorant if he’d taken my advice back in 2010 and got himself a copy of McNaes…
And know that ‘English’ law is not so very-far removed from Scots in terms of the
offence he was accused of.
Angiolini – quite rightly – got her non-harassment order… Why
wouldn’t she? Green had offered the court absolutely no reason not to grant it!
He offered no defence…
This was also true of events that had seen him jailed in the
first place… In the run-up to his jailing Green was coy and deceptive as to the
exact nature of the charges he faced (as he has been in this most recent
debacle). He went to jail because – Instead
of offering any kind of cogent or relevant defence – he tried to ‘showboat’ at
his trial; turning the entire thing into a complete farce! I seem to recall
remarking at the time that had the judge been Green’s own Mother, legally, she’d
have been left with absolutely no choice but to jail the damned fool… And I’ll remind readers here that in the time
leading up to his first jail sentence – and since - Green and his cohorts have wilfully mislead the
public as to why he was behind bars…
Robert Green hasn’t ‘helped’ the victims of sexual abuse in
any way, shape or form… Quite the reverse. He’s armed those who – like Elish
Angiolini – would like those outside her circle; her fiefdom, to be casually
dismissed as nutcases and conspiracy theorists. He’s contributed to a situation
where people like Jimmy Savile’s victims are routinely labelled as ‘attention-seekers’
and ‘gold-diggers’…
There remains a legitimate, logical case to argue in favour
of holding a formal review of the Hollie Greig case. Of seeking a formal
investigation into it and explaining clearly and finally to the public how the system came to fail
her... And explaining how things have changed to protect people like Hollie in
the future… But that argument is lost
in the black noise created by Robert Green and his cohorts…
True, the punishment he has faced is cruel and unusual and excessive; out of all proportion to his crime. And that lights the light of suspicion that yes – ‘something’ is not right here.
True, the punishment he has faced is cruel and unusual and excessive; out of all proportion to his crime. And that lights the light of suspicion that yes – ‘something’ is not right here.
But Robert Green? He is no innocent – not by a country mile!
