15. Shilly Billy…
Yes Malcolm 'Kon-man' Ogilvy; your damnedable shame you filthy cur!
I almost want to feel sorry for him… But really I can’t muster the slightest grain of sympathy for anyone who seeks to deflect from the true facts of the Hollie Greig case; particularly when they seek to exploit the poor girl’s suffering by projecting guilt onto others in order to serve their own cheap sectarian-politico ends. Covering up for perverts to win the votes of the ignorant and the rudderless.
And that principle would apply no matter who was being unjustly targeted and no matter how anyone was trying to exploit Hollie Greig's plight...
Rather tediously Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy yet again, possibly for the third or fourth time this week, trots out the same old cheap lie about Alex Salmond having ‘hidden’ information relating to the Hollie Greig case. And yet again trots out the same-old years-old incompetently-researched and politically biased article from ‘The Firm’ – A legal trade paper firmly in the establishment pocket and not-exactly known for its political objectivity. - Nor in my view its competence!
Robert Green’s blatant lies about Alex Salmond having failed or refused to comply with the Scottish Information Commissioner’s ‘order’ to respond to him are debunked in detail here
http://hollie-greig-book-closed.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/9-first-minister-in-missing-records.html
The truth of the matter is that Green wrote to the First Minister’s office in June 2009. And legally, as anyone with even a basic knowlege of the structure of the Scots legal system (especially the editor of a legal-trade magazine) would or should know, neither the First Minister nor any other Scottish Minister can intervene or act in respect of specific matters relating to the administration of criminal justice in Scotland. That, by law, is a matter entirely for the Lord Advocate and the COPFS...
It's relevant I think that Steven Raeburn's company Red Cloud Legal Publishing Limited was first listed for striking off under section 652 of the Companies Act in July of 2013. It was listed again in April of 2014 and finally struck-off in August 2014. It would - according to available records - seem NOT to have filed its obligatory annual returns or accounts since January 2012. It's also the case that "The Firm" - edited by Raeburn - was forced in late 2009 and early 2010 (Yes! - Twice!) to apologise to Angiolini with respect to material it had published on the 17th of November 2009 on the Hollie Greig case...
Frankly it matters not if 'Levy & McRae' or 'Tom & Jerry' acted on behalf of the Lord Advocate... If you publish material that is properly researched and cross-checked - you do the due diligence on it in other words - you cannot be censured in this way. So seriously 'off' were the claims in Raeburn's piece that there are reports of the Crown Office having issued a release which contained a threat of defamation proceedings against anyone who quoted it! - The plain fact is that Steven Raeburn exposed himself; he simply hadn't checked his facts properly before publishing, his article was bullshit and he was 'had up' for it! - Not competent!
Risibly, of the issue, a blog calling itself the Scottish Law Reporter published the following in its November 2009 account...
"Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill refused to comment on Hollie Greig's case. While supporters & friends of Hollie's family have sent out pleas for help to many of Holyrood's MSPs, including Brian Adam who, documents now reveal was involved in assisting Hollie & her mother while they lived in Aberdeen, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill refused to make any comment on the case, instead referring media interest to Scotland's Crown Office. When enquiries were made of the Crown Office for their reaction to the abuse allegations and certain details, the Crown Office issued a release which contained a threat of defamation proceedings against anyone who quoted two reports published on 17 November in one of Scotland’s legal publications, “The Firm” magazine."
The 'spin' put on this causes it to both wobble violently and trace quite a strange path... OF COURSE "Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill refused to make any comment on the case, instead referring media interest to Scotland's Crown Office" - Because as any elementary-level student of Scots law knows, "The First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal conduct. No other member of the Scottish Government is able to take any action either." ! - Makes you wonder where (or even IF) these 'big dogs' of the Scottish legal press studied law or even sat so much as the basic law unit that's included in almost every credible media-related Scottish college course from HNC level up!
Raeburn seems to have learned no lessons from his brush with the Press Complaints Commission.
His 2011 piece, implicating Salmond in a 'missing records riddle' is not only just as badly researched - but also reflects a spectacular ignorance of, or disregard for, (I'm not sure which) how the Scottish justice system is structured...
What motive Raeburn had for publishing material that is either incompetent or disingenuous is unclear. How lacking in the capacity for critical thought his readership in the Scottish legal profession that might be taken in by such pish is equally vague. What is certain is that it remains possible to fool only some of the people for some of the time.
So - as is in accordance with the law of the land - Green’s original email to Salmond was, as a matter of routine, passed directly to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal’s Office which replied to him in July 2009… The First Minister’s office didn’t even 'record' it – they had no reason to - it was merely the forwarding of an email.
Despite having got a response to his original letter, Green then embarked on a campaign of persistent - some might say manic - letter-writing, making a complete bloody nuisance of himself and eventually earning a place on the ‘vexatious writer’s’ list...
Again - for the hard of thinking - I'll repeat, only the COPFS can deal with such matters, and each of his letters to the First Minister were passed to them. In November 2009 he was told, in writing, by the COPFS, that they would entertain him no longer.
Despite this, in early 2011 he approached the First Minister’s office yet again. It appears that – finding his name on the vexatious writer’s list – clerical staff at the Scottish Government simply ignored him… He wrote again a few more times and was ignored a few more times... This eventually lead to Green complaining to the Scottish Information Commissioner which issued a decision in relation to a breach of the [quote] “technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002”…
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201100721.aspx
And by “technical requirements" it's been explained to me that the November 2009 letter from the COPFS should perhaps have been a little more explicit in explaining to Green that he was - with respect to this matter - on the 'vexatious writer's' list with the Scottish Government generally. - In other words all this talk of 'Alex Salmond breaking the law' really amounts to some anonymous clerk making an honest mistake based on a COPFS letter that wasn't as explicit as it really ought to have been...
The Information Commissioner therefore ordered the Scottish Government to respond, which they did, on July the 8th 2011 – and this particular fact has been recently checked with the information commissioner… Despite this, Robert Green has been lying through his teeth ever since, falsely claiming that the Scottish Government still haven’t responded, and have broken the law. Going on to paint this all as part of a mighty cover-up of the Hollie Greig case orchestrated by Alex Salmond.
It's a blatant lie that can clearly only serve political purposes. And Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy repeats this lie on an near-daily basis… For the avoidance of doubt, Green and Ogilvy’s dishonesty is further exposed in another decision which is – as it says on the tin – ‘public knowledge…
http://itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201101240.aspx
Green, apparently, ‘wasn’t happy’ with the response that he claims he never got! So unhappy that he took his complaint back to the Information Commissioner. And their records in relation to this are readily accessible for the world to explore… Exposing, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Robert Green has been lying to the public for years...
So, just for the sake of clarity why did ‘Alex Salmond’ ignore Robert Green in early 2011?
Well first of all it’s highly unlikely that Salmond himself would ever have even seen Green’s letter or even been remotely aware of it… Only the most naive and educationally-challenged individual might imagine that any any senior manager of any large public service organisation sits there of a morning opening their own mail!
I am aware of course that there is 'lunatic fringe footage' of Green physically handing material to Salmond - and Salmond acknowledging that he would look at it. But so what? Why on earth would Salmond's office 'log' that in any way? And what does it matter anyway? The best Salmond could ever do with it is pass it on to COPFS - a road already travelled.
The nutters screaming that he could have sacked or even censured Angiolini in respect of the Hollie Greig case are as deluded as they are incorrect... Quite apart from the fact that the law of the land means that "the First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal conduct.." A Lord Advocate is not an easy rock to shift under any circumstances.
Rather comically, the idiot Ogilvy has on his shill site reproduced certain information on the role and functions of the Lord Advocate which he's obviously cut-and-pasted from the COPFS website... Enthusiastically the moron spews...
"8. A Law Officer may resign at any time and must do so if the Parliament resolves that the Government no longer enjoys the confidence of the Parliament (SA s.48(2)). S
SO ALEC SALMOND COULD HAVE OUSTED ANGOLINI "
Err, no Malcolm... The terms "Parliament", "The Government" and "First Minister" mean completely different things. What this statement actually means is that if there is a Parliamentary vote of no confidence in the incumbent Government, then the law officers of that Government must resign from office - the reason for that being that constitutionally the First Minister cannot 'fire' them as they might have to do with their other appointed Ministers in such an event...
The reason why this is the case is outlined in paragraph four of the very material quoted on holliegreigjustice...
"4. The Law Officers are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the First Minister, with the agreement of the Parliament (SA s.48(1)). Unlike other Ministers, however, they cannot be removed from office by the First Minister without the approval of the Parliament (SA s.48(1))."
And, actually, in the event of a resolution of "no confidence" the First Minister themselves would be ousted from office this is embodied in Section 44 subsection 2 of the Scotland Act which "provides that the First Minister may tender his resignation at any time. It also requires the First Minister to resign if the Scottish Parliament resolves that the Scottish Executive no longer enjoys the confidence of the Parliament."So no Malcolm you stupidly-dishonest bloody shill... The information you've posted actually confirms that Elish Angiolini couldn't have been removed from office by the First Minister!
It would take a formal vote of "no confidence" on the part of the full parliament to have ousted Elish Angiolini; even then it might have been tricky... And in this respect the Hollie Greig case doesn't provide enough explosive material to set off a party-popper let alone blow that particular cuckoo out of the nest!
As Steven Raeburn had to admit, in relation to the original complaint lodged by Anne Greig ...
"There was no allegation of a paedophile ring contained in the police report to the Procurator Fiscal at that time; that there was no allegation about a sheriff or a policeman in the report; that the decision not to prosecute was made before the Lord Advocate took up post as Regional Procurator Fiscal and on the basis that there was insufficient evidence in law; and that she was unaware of the claim at the time and has never had any involvement in the case."
The extended allegations; those of a high level paedophile ring, involving a 'Senior Police Officer' (who was no such thing!), Sheriff Buchanan, social workers care workers, half the neighbourhood and 'Uncle Tom Cobley and all'... Allegations that have in recent months have been 'dressed up' further to include a 'fashionable' satanic element... The fact is Anne Greig only added these after the fact when her original complaint could not be prosecuted because the contemporaneous evidence was allowed to become lost or destroyed.
And it's worth noting here that the records seem to reflect that part of the reason that contemporaneous evidence was unavailable is that Anne Greig herself seem to have been a party to the concerns raised about Hollie's sexualisation being disregarded...
That is not to say that I don't believe there to be more to the Hollie Greig case than the core allegations... Individuals whose collective daily lives include abusing their own children, covering up for it and even gaining a conviction for masturbating in a public place clearly live dysfunctional lives. You might - in my view - reasonably form the opinion that those close to them, having lain down with these dogs, might well arise with the same fleas.
In fact I will go as far as to say that I believe the extended allegations to exist for the purpose of distracting from the truth... But I'm afraid all this crap about a paedophile ring has all the hallmarks of a misdirection coming from someone who would like the heat kept off more troubling matters...
To return to the sectarian-politico lies of Green and Ogilvy...
The Hollie Greig case was, as Green knew damned-well by this time, a matter that the FM’s office could not deal with. And Green had already been told by the relevant department that they would not be responding to him again. The matter of his formal correspondence would have been ‘handled’ by a junior Clerical Officer – and their error, as noted by the Scottish Information Commissioner was merely a “technical” one. Of no real consequence... Clearly 'Alex Salmond' would have had hee-haw to do with any of this...
And even if he did - what possible material relevance is there to a record of when some clerk in the First Minister's office forwarded an email to another department? Such a record doesn't 'evidence' anything!
But as if lying to the public about the reply he claims he never got (but still managed to put in an official complaint about) Robert Green’s blatant dishonesty is further illustrated by his rather lame attempts to misrepresent a letter he ‘weedled out’ of the Scottish Information Commissioner dated the 26th of May 2014…
Green wrote to the SIC soliciting a letter from them that confirmed the dates he himself had written reminders to the First Minister's office - and he was very sly and devious in making sure he asked for no further information. The SIC of course responded... With only the limited information he had asked for...
Both Green and Ogilvy dishonestly try to con people into believing this is confirmation that the Scottish Government still haven’t provided the response ordered in 2011 – but it’s no such thing. It’s simply - as the content of the letter itself emphasises - a letter confirming the dates on which Green himself sent reminders to the Scottish Government… It carries no other detail or information, ‘proves’ nothing of note, and is entirely debunked (in terms of how Green misrepresents it) by the publically-checkable records on the Scottish Information Commissioners website…
One of the problems with stupid people is that they assume everyone else is just as thick and ill-educated as they are! But it doesn’t matter how often Ogilvy repeats the lie or trots out ‘The Firm’s’ lame and disingenuous (as lawyers they know damned-well that the FM can’t interfere with the administration of justice) article…
The fact remains Robert Green got his reply on the 8th of July 2011… Almost four years ago!
The fact remains that the Scottish Government’s error was merely a [quote] “technical” one… Of absolutely no consequence, and unlikely to have involved Alex Salmond at any time or level…
And the fact is - as most recently confirmed in writing by the Scottish Government in a letter to one Scott Pattinson, who wrote to them pretty-much repeating Green's 'questions' from 2011 - is that [quote]...
I almost want to feel sorry for him… But really I can’t muster the slightest grain of sympathy for anyone who seeks to deflect from the true facts of the Hollie Greig case; particularly when they seek to exploit the poor girl’s suffering by projecting guilt onto others in order to serve their own cheap sectarian-politico ends. Covering up for perverts to win the votes of the ignorant and the rudderless.
And that principle would apply no matter who was being unjustly targeted and no matter how anyone was trying to exploit Hollie Greig's plight...
Rather tediously Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy yet again, possibly for the third or fourth time this week, trots out the same old cheap lie about Alex Salmond having ‘hidden’ information relating to the Hollie Greig case. And yet again trots out the same-old years-old incompetently-researched and politically biased article from ‘The Firm’ – A legal trade paper firmly in the establishment pocket and not-exactly known for its political objectivity. - Nor in my view its competence!
Robert Green’s blatant lies about Alex Salmond having failed or refused to comply with the Scottish Information Commissioner’s ‘order’ to respond to him are debunked in detail here
http://hollie-greig-book-closed.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/9-first-minister-in-missing-records.html
The truth of the matter is that Green wrote to the First Minister’s office in June 2009. And legally, as anyone with even a basic knowlege of the structure of the Scots legal system (especially the editor of a legal-trade magazine) would or should know, neither the First Minister nor any other Scottish Minister can intervene or act in respect of specific matters relating to the administration of criminal justice in Scotland. That, by law, is a matter entirely for the Lord Advocate and the COPFS...
It's relevant I think that Steven Raeburn's company Red Cloud Legal Publishing Limited was first listed for striking off under section 652 of the Companies Act in July of 2013. It was listed again in April of 2014 and finally struck-off in August 2014. It would - according to available records - seem NOT to have filed its obligatory annual returns or accounts since January 2012. It's also the case that "The Firm" - edited by Raeburn - was forced in late 2009 and early 2010 (Yes! - Twice!) to apologise to Angiolini with respect to material it had published on the 17th of November 2009 on the Hollie Greig case...
Frankly it matters not if 'Levy & McRae' or 'Tom & Jerry' acted on behalf of the Lord Advocate... If you publish material that is properly researched and cross-checked - you do the due diligence on it in other words - you cannot be censured in this way. So seriously 'off' were the claims in Raeburn's piece that there are reports of the Crown Office having issued a release which contained a threat of defamation proceedings against anyone who quoted it! - The plain fact is that Steven Raeburn exposed himself; he simply hadn't checked his facts properly before publishing, his article was bullshit and he was 'had up' for it! - Not competent!
Risibly, of the issue, a blog calling itself the Scottish Law Reporter published the following in its November 2009 account...
"Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill refused to comment on Hollie Greig's case. While supporters & friends of Hollie's family have sent out pleas for help to many of Holyrood's MSPs, including Brian Adam who, documents now reveal was involved in assisting Hollie & her mother while they lived in Aberdeen, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill refused to make any comment on the case, instead referring media interest to Scotland's Crown Office. When enquiries were made of the Crown Office for their reaction to the abuse allegations and certain details, the Crown Office issued a release which contained a threat of defamation proceedings against anyone who quoted two reports published on 17 November in one of Scotland’s legal publications, “The Firm” magazine."
The 'spin' put on this causes it to both wobble violently and trace quite a strange path... OF COURSE "Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill refused to make any comment on the case, instead referring media interest to Scotland's Crown Office" - Because as any elementary-level student of Scots law knows, "The First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal conduct. No other member of the Scottish Government is able to take any action either." ! - Makes you wonder where (or even IF) these 'big dogs' of the Scottish legal press studied law or even sat so much as the basic law unit that's included in almost every credible media-related Scottish college course from HNC level up!
Raeburn seems to have learned no lessons from his brush with the Press Complaints Commission.
His 2011 piece, implicating Salmond in a 'missing records riddle' is not only just as badly researched - but also reflects a spectacular ignorance of, or disregard for, (I'm not sure which) how the Scottish justice system is structured...
What motive Raeburn had for publishing material that is either incompetent or disingenuous is unclear. How lacking in the capacity for critical thought his readership in the Scottish legal profession that might be taken in by such pish is equally vague. What is certain is that it remains possible to fool only some of the people for some of the time.
So - as is in accordance with the law of the land - Green’s original email to Salmond was, as a matter of routine, passed directly to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal’s Office which replied to him in July 2009… The First Minister’s office didn’t even 'record' it – they had no reason to - it was merely the forwarding of an email.
Despite having got a response to his original letter, Green then embarked on a campaign of persistent - some might say manic - letter-writing, making a complete bloody nuisance of himself and eventually earning a place on the ‘vexatious writer’s’ list...
27th of July, 2009, Green writes AGAIN to the First
Minister…
2nd of August, 2009, Green writes AGAIN to the First
Minister…
9th of August, 2009, Green writes AGAIN to the First
Minister…
25th of August 2009, Green
Writes to Angiolini
2nd September 2009,
Green Writes to the Grampian Area PF
9th of September, 2009, Green writes AGAIN to the First
Minister…
10th September 2009, Green Writes AGAIN to the
Grampian Area PF
18th of September, 2009, Green writes AGAIN to the First
Minister…
26th of October, 2009,
Green AGAIN Writes to Angiolini
Again - for the hard of thinking - I'll repeat, only the COPFS can deal with such matters, and each of his letters to the First Minister were passed to them. In November 2009 he was told, in writing, by the COPFS, that they would entertain him no longer.
Despite this, in early 2011 he approached the First Minister’s office yet again. It appears that – finding his name on the vexatious writer’s list – clerical staff at the Scottish Government simply ignored him… He wrote again a few more times and was ignored a few more times... This eventually lead to Green complaining to the Scottish Information Commissioner which issued a decision in relation to a breach of the [quote] “technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002”…
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201100721.aspx
And by “technical requirements" it's been explained to me that the November 2009 letter from the COPFS should perhaps have been a little more explicit in explaining to Green that he was - with respect to this matter - on the 'vexatious writer's' list with the Scottish Government generally. - In other words all this talk of 'Alex Salmond breaking the law' really amounts to some anonymous clerk making an honest mistake based on a COPFS letter that wasn't as explicit as it really ought to have been...
The Information Commissioner therefore ordered the Scottish Government to respond, which they did, on July the 8th 2011 – and this particular fact has been recently checked with the information commissioner… Despite this, Robert Green has been lying through his teeth ever since, falsely claiming that the Scottish Government still haven’t responded, and have broken the law. Going on to paint this all as part of a mighty cover-up of the Hollie Greig case orchestrated by Alex Salmond.
It's a blatant lie that can clearly only serve political purposes. And Malcolm Konrad Ogilvy repeats this lie on an near-daily basis… For the avoidance of doubt, Green and Ogilvy’s dishonesty is further exposed in another decision which is – as it says on the tin – ‘public knowledge…
http://itspublicknowledge.info/ApplicationsandDecisions/Decisions/2011/201101240.aspx
Green, apparently, ‘wasn’t happy’ with the response that he claims he never got! So unhappy that he took his complaint back to the Information Commissioner. And their records in relation to this are readily accessible for the world to explore… Exposing, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Robert Green has been lying to the public for years...
So, just for the sake of clarity why did ‘Alex Salmond’ ignore Robert Green in early 2011?
Well first of all it’s highly unlikely that Salmond himself would ever have even seen Green’s letter or even been remotely aware of it… Only the most naive and educationally-challenged individual might imagine that any any senior manager of any large public service organisation sits there of a morning opening their own mail!
I am aware of course that there is 'lunatic fringe footage' of Green physically handing material to Salmond - and Salmond acknowledging that he would look at it. But so what? Why on earth would Salmond's office 'log' that in any way? And what does it matter anyway? The best Salmond could ever do with it is pass it on to COPFS - a road already travelled.
The nutters screaming that he could have sacked or even censured Angiolini in respect of the Hollie Greig case are as deluded as they are incorrect... Quite apart from the fact that the law of the land means that "the First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal conduct.." A Lord Advocate is not an easy rock to shift under any circumstances.
Rather comically, the idiot Ogilvy has on his shill site reproduced certain information on the role and functions of the Lord Advocate which he's obviously cut-and-pasted from the COPFS website... Enthusiastically the moron spews...
"8. A Law Officer may resign at any time and must do so if the Parliament resolves that the Government no longer enjoys the confidence of the Parliament (SA s.48(2)). S
SO ALEC SALMOND COULD HAVE OUSTED ANGOLINI "
Err, no Malcolm... The terms "Parliament", "The Government" and "First Minister" mean completely different things. What this statement actually means is that if there is a Parliamentary vote of no confidence in the incumbent Government, then the law officers of that Government must resign from office - the reason for that being that constitutionally the First Minister cannot 'fire' them as they might have to do with their other appointed Ministers in such an event...
The reason why this is the case is outlined in paragraph four of the very material quoted on holliegreigjustice...
"4. The Law Officers are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the First Minister, with the agreement of the Parliament (SA s.48(1)). Unlike other Ministers, however, they cannot be removed from office by the First Minister without the approval of the Parliament (SA s.48(1))."
And, actually, in the event of a resolution of "no confidence" the First Minister themselves would be ousted from office this is embodied in Section 44 subsection 2 of the Scotland Act which "provides that the First Minister may tender his resignation at any time. It also requires the First Minister to resign if the Scottish Parliament resolves that the Scottish Executive no longer enjoys the confidence of the Parliament."So no Malcolm you stupidly-dishonest bloody shill... The information you've posted actually confirms that Elish Angiolini couldn't have been removed from office by the First Minister!
It would take a formal vote of "no confidence" on the part of the full parliament to have ousted Elish Angiolini; even then it might have been tricky... And in this respect the Hollie Greig case doesn't provide enough explosive material to set off a party-popper let alone blow that particular cuckoo out of the nest!
As Steven Raeburn had to admit, in relation to the original complaint lodged by Anne Greig ...
"There was no allegation of a paedophile ring contained in the police report to the Procurator Fiscal at that time; that there was no allegation about a sheriff or a policeman in the report; that the decision not to prosecute was made before the Lord Advocate took up post as Regional Procurator Fiscal and on the basis that there was insufficient evidence in law; and that she was unaware of the claim at the time and has never had any involvement in the case."
The extended allegations; those of a high level paedophile ring, involving a 'Senior Police Officer' (who was no such thing!), Sheriff Buchanan, social workers care workers, half the neighbourhood and 'Uncle Tom Cobley and all'... Allegations that have in recent months have been 'dressed up' further to include a 'fashionable' satanic element... The fact is Anne Greig only added these after the fact when her original complaint could not be prosecuted because the contemporaneous evidence was allowed to become lost or destroyed.
And it's worth noting here that the records seem to reflect that part of the reason that contemporaneous evidence was unavailable is that Anne Greig herself seem to have been a party to the concerns raised about Hollie's sexualisation being disregarded...
That is not to say that I don't believe there to be more to the Hollie Greig case than the core allegations... Individuals whose collective daily lives include abusing their own children, covering up for it and even gaining a conviction for masturbating in a public place clearly live dysfunctional lives. You might - in my view - reasonably form the opinion that those close to them, having lain down with these dogs, might well arise with the same fleas.
In fact I will go as far as to say that I believe the extended allegations to exist for the purpose of distracting from the truth... But I'm afraid all this crap about a paedophile ring has all the hallmarks of a misdirection coming from someone who would like the heat kept off more troubling matters...
To return to the sectarian-politico lies of Green and Ogilvy...
The Hollie Greig case was, as Green knew damned-well by this time, a matter that the FM’s office could not deal with. And Green had already been told by the relevant department that they would not be responding to him again. The matter of his formal correspondence would have been ‘handled’ by a junior Clerical Officer – and their error, as noted by the Scottish Information Commissioner was merely a “technical” one. Of no real consequence... Clearly 'Alex Salmond' would have had hee-haw to do with any of this...
And even if he did - what possible material relevance is there to a record of when some clerk in the First Minister's office forwarded an email to another department? Such a record doesn't 'evidence' anything!
But as if lying to the public about the reply he claims he never got (but still managed to put in an official complaint about) Robert Green’s blatant dishonesty is further illustrated by his rather lame attempts to misrepresent a letter he ‘weedled out’ of the Scottish Information Commissioner dated the 26th of May 2014…
Green wrote to the SIC soliciting a letter from them that confirmed the dates he himself had written reminders to the First Minister's office - and he was very sly and devious in making sure he asked for no further information. The SIC of course responded... With only the limited information he had asked for...
Both Green and Ogilvy dishonestly try to con people into believing this is confirmation that the Scottish Government still haven’t provided the response ordered in 2011 – but it’s no such thing. It’s simply - as the content of the letter itself emphasises - a letter confirming the dates on which Green himself sent reminders to the Scottish Government… It carries no other detail or information, ‘proves’ nothing of note, and is entirely debunked (in terms of how Green misrepresents it) by the publically-checkable records on the Scottish Information Commissioners website…
One of the problems with stupid people is that they assume everyone else is just as thick and ill-educated as they are! But it doesn’t matter how often Ogilvy repeats the lie or trots out ‘The Firm’s’ lame and disingenuous (as lawyers they know damned-well that the FM can’t interfere with the administration of justice) article…
The fact remains Robert Green got his reply on the 8th of July 2011… Almost four years ago!
The fact remains that the Scottish Government’s error was merely a [quote] “technical” one… Of absolutely no consequence, and unlikely to have involved Alex Salmond at any time or level…
And the fact is - as most recently confirmed in writing by the Scottish Government in a letter to one Scott Pattinson, who wrote to them pretty-much repeating Green's 'questions' from 2011 - is that [quote]...
"The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) is the sole public prosecution body in Scotland, responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the public interest. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are responsible for taking decisions and directing the police in relation to criminal cases. The First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal conduct. No other member of the Scottish Government is able to take any action either."
So please do tell us Malcolm…
Why ARE you still lying through your dirty rotten teeth about this?
Why ARE you trying to draw attention AWAY from the truth of the Hollie Greig case?
What is YOUR association with the issues that the extended allegations seek to provide a smokescreen for?
Why ARE you exploiting this poor abused girl for your own tawdry ends?
Why, Malcolm Con-man Ogilvy, are you being such a shilly-Billy?
Really Malcom, the only difference between you and Greg Lance-Watkins is your gutteral accent and inability to string two thoughts coherently together... Clearly, you're on the same team.
Why ARE you still lying through your dirty rotten teeth about this?
Why ARE you trying to draw attention AWAY from the truth of the Hollie Greig case?
What is YOUR association with the issues that the extended allegations seek to provide a smokescreen for?
Why ARE you exploiting this poor abused girl for your own tawdry ends?
Why, Malcolm Con-man Ogilvy, are you being such a shilly-Billy?
Really Malcom, the only difference between you and Greg Lance-Watkins is your gutteral accent and inability to string two thoughts coherently together... Clearly, you're on the same team.
