In my blog of December 12th 2010 - "The Sectioning Of Anne Greig" I described in detail the events of September 5th 2000 when Anne Mackie (as she was known then) was forcibly sectioned in Cornhill Psychiatric Hospital in Aberdeen, and the confusion which exists over the paperwork required to authorise this sectioning which appears to have gone missing. This incident occurred just eleven days after Hollie had made a statement to Grampian Police, the content of which I have been personally prohibited from referring to by the Scottish Courts "in the public interest".
I have a copy of a letter dated August 1st 2003 from Mrs Catherine Mason, a Senior Social Worker with Aberdeen City Council's Community Mental Health Team, which stated that the warrant required by Section 24 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 was signed by Justice of the Peace, John Logan.
We have recently contacted Mr Logan who stated:
"I have never been approached to sign any such warrant and I believe that such a document would have to be signed by a Sheriff."
A prima facie case undoubtedly exists for a full investigation into the false imprisonment of Anne Greig.
This untrue statement emanating from Social Services has an uncanny similarity to events occurring in the aftermath of my arrest for Breach of the Peace in February 2010. While I was held in custody in Aberdeen, my home in Cheshire was raided by four Grampian Police officers who seized a wide variety of items. To date, there is still no sign of the search warrant authorising this.
Anne's MP, Owen Paterson, wrote to Grampian Police requesting information on this matter and he was informed in writing that the warrant was prepared by a PC Vreades.
I promptly contacted PC Vreades, who not only knew nothing about the warrant, but stated that he was not of sufficient seniority to be involved in the preparation of such a document.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Criminal Charges And Bail Conditions
I appeared in Stonehaven Sheriff Court yesterday in relation to the criminal charges which have been brought against me. The purpose of the hearing was to change the status of my case from "Solemn" to "Summary" because the Crown has decided that it is in the public interest for my case not to be decided by a jury. One positive development was that the proceedings took place in open court. My three previous court appearances were all "in camera" ie closed to the public.
The case was heard by Sheriff Davies in spite of the facts that: a) I had formally complained about comments he made in April 2010 when I applied for a variation in my bail conditions; b) my lawyer had written to the Court to request that the case was heard by a Sheriff from outwith the Aberdeen area.
There have been some amendments to the charges brought by the Crown, and the Breach of the Peace charge now states that between 1 June 2009 and 7 December 2010 I conducted a public campaign of harassment against named persons, placing them in a state of fear and alarm for their safety causing the apprehension of serious public disturbance in Aberdeen and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
I am advised by legal experts that this appears to be a most unusual interpretation of the law relating to Breach of the Peace.
In addition there are 2 charges relating to breach of bail conditions and 2 charges relating to the Communications Act.
There was a lengthy debate over my bail conditions with the Crown arguing that it was in the public interest for the existing conditions to be maintained. In respect of the requirement that I sign in at Warrington police station twice per week the Crown stated that this was necessary to confine me to Warrington and prevent me from sloping off to Aberdeen.
My excellent defence lawyer, Gerry Sweeney, passionately countered that the bail conditions were totally disproportionate, undemocratic and breached my human rights. He expressed his horror at the language used by the Crown and argued that there was no need for me to be subject to any bail conditions whatsoever.
The decision of Sheriff Davies was that, in addition to standard bail conditions, I should be subject to 3 special conditions.
Firstly, that I should not approach or contact various named persons including those whom I have previously named as members or victims of a paedophile gang. This condition does not concern me as I have absolutely no intention of approaching them.
Secondly, that I do not advance or communicate allegations similar to those alleged in the charges. Mr Sweeney used an excellent analogy to demonstrate the absurdity of this condition. It would be akin to a person accused of assault being unable to explain to anyone when he was released on bail that he had acted in self-defence and also being prevented from acting in self-defence if he was assaulted after being released on bail. In my own case, this would mean that if someone was to approach me claiming that their child had been the victim of a paedophile ring and the police had not properly investigated these allegations, I would be prevented by the Court from offering any assistance.
Thirdly, that I do not enter Aberdeen City or Aberdeenshire. This condition seems fundamentally unfair and I do not understand how it could be deemed to be in the public interest.
I intend to appeal against these bail conditions but, at the present time, I have no option but to abide by them which means that I am prevented from investigating or publicising either the allegations of sexual abuse made by Hollie Greig or the suspicous death of her uncle, Roy Greig. There is nothing to prevent me from carrying out other work for my clients Anne and Hollie Greig, such as investigating the circumstances of the raid on their home by Police and Social Services in June 2010 or the sectioning of Anne in September 2000. In both of these matters there are significant new developments which I hope to be able to publicise very shortly.
The case was heard by Sheriff Davies in spite of the facts that: a) I had formally complained about comments he made in April 2010 when I applied for a variation in my bail conditions; b) my lawyer had written to the Court to request that the case was heard by a Sheriff from outwith the Aberdeen area.
There have been some amendments to the charges brought by the Crown, and the Breach of the Peace charge now states that between 1 June 2009 and 7 December 2010 I conducted a public campaign of harassment against named persons, placing them in a state of fear and alarm for their safety causing the apprehension of serious public disturbance in Aberdeen and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
I am advised by legal experts that this appears to be a most unusual interpretation of the law relating to Breach of the Peace.
In addition there are 2 charges relating to breach of bail conditions and 2 charges relating to the Communications Act.
There was a lengthy debate over my bail conditions with the Crown arguing that it was in the public interest for the existing conditions to be maintained. In respect of the requirement that I sign in at Warrington police station twice per week the Crown stated that this was necessary to confine me to Warrington and prevent me from sloping off to Aberdeen.
My excellent defence lawyer, Gerry Sweeney, passionately countered that the bail conditions were totally disproportionate, undemocratic and breached my human rights. He expressed his horror at the language used by the Crown and argued that there was no need for me to be subject to any bail conditions whatsoever.
The decision of Sheriff Davies was that, in addition to standard bail conditions, I should be subject to 3 special conditions.
Firstly, that I should not approach or contact various named persons including those whom I have previously named as members or victims of a paedophile gang. This condition does not concern me as I have absolutely no intention of approaching them.
Secondly, that I do not advance or communicate allegations similar to those alleged in the charges. Mr Sweeney used an excellent analogy to demonstrate the absurdity of this condition. It would be akin to a person accused of assault being unable to explain to anyone when he was released on bail that he had acted in self-defence and also being prevented from acting in self-defence if he was assaulted after being released on bail. In my own case, this would mean that if someone was to approach me claiming that their child had been the victim of a paedophile ring and the police had not properly investigated these allegations, I would be prevented by the Court from offering any assistance.
Thirdly, that I do not enter Aberdeen City or Aberdeenshire. This condition seems fundamentally unfair and I do not understand how it could be deemed to be in the public interest.
I intend to appeal against these bail conditions but, at the present time, I have no option but to abide by them which means that I am prevented from investigating or publicising either the allegations of sexual abuse made by Hollie Greig or the suspicous death of her uncle, Roy Greig. There is nothing to prevent me from carrying out other work for my clients Anne and Hollie Greig, such as investigating the circumstances of the raid on their home by Police and Social Services in June 2010 or the sectioning of Anne in September 2000. In both of these matters there are significant new developments which I hope to be able to publicise very shortly.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Court Appearance Wednesday 26th January
I will be attending Stonehaven Sheriff Court at 1000 on Wednesday 26th January for the Intermediate Diet for my case. This is simply an administrative procedure where I will be asked to re-affirm my plea of Not Guilty and no evidence will be heard. No date has been set for the trial diet. I hope to be in a position to supply more details very soon.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Letter To Shropshire Councillors
This letter has been sent to all 74 Councillors in Shropshire.
Dear Councillor,
I am the lay legal representative for two Shropshire residents, Anne Greig and her daughter Hollie Greig.
Hollie has Downs Syndrome and in her childhood she was sexually abused by a gang of paedophiles in her home city of Aberdeen. Hollie was awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority despite the fact that no-one was ever charged with any crime. Anne and Hollie moved from Aberdeen to Shropshire with the intention of starting a new life.
In 2010 the campaign for Hollie's abusers to be brought to justice gathered considerable momentum in spite of the fact that it has not been reported by the mainstream media. It appears that there are powerful forces attempting to protect Hollie's abusers and to ensure that her story is not told. Unfortunately, Shropshire Council, rather than offering protection and support to these two vulnerable women, have actually subjected them to harassment and intimidation.
The most serious incident occurred on June 3rd 2010 when my clients house was broken into by 3 police officers accompanied by 2 employees of Shropshire Council. Less than 2 hours prior to the break-in I was contacted by DC Ed Bates of West Mercia Police who advised me that Social Services had contacted the police as they had concerns about Hollie's safety and wellbeing. I assured DC Bates that Hollie was safe and well and that she was taking a short holiday with her mother. In spite of my assurances, the Greigs house was raided and was basically vandalised. The police and Council employees were in the property for 3 hours and Anne's computer and various personal items were removed.
I am aware that on June 1st 2010 Social Services in Shropshire were contacted by a Mr Greg Lance-Watkins of Chepstow who claimed to be concern for Hollie's safety and wellbeing. Mr Lance-Watkins, who has never met Hollie, is a full-time blogger who holds various strange and extreme opinions ( a google search of his name will demonstrate this). I am shocked that Shropshire Council appear to have been influenced by this person, who claims to be in contact with Hollie's brother, who is one of the people she has named as having abused her. On June 10th 2010 a photograph which was removed from the Greigs house during the raid appeared on one of Mr Lance-Watkins blogs.
I have written to the Chief Executive of Shropshire Council, Mr Kim Ryley, who assured me that the Council had no prior knowledge of the raid. I have recently learned from the Information Commission that this statement is untrue. I have twice attempted to talk about this matter at Public Meetings of Shropshire Council and have been prevented from doing so although from conversations with individual Councillors it has became clear to me that elected representatives have no knowledge whatsoever of these events.
I believe that Kim Ryley is personally responsible both for the harassment and intimidation of two vulnerable women and for lying in an attempt to cover up his actions. Therefore I consider that he is not a suitable person to hold the postion of Chief Executive of Shropshire Council and I would ask that you take the necessary actions to remove him from office.
I have only provided a short summary of the facts and if you wish to have more information or to see documentary evidence please feel free to contact me.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Green
Dear Councillor,
I am the lay legal representative for two Shropshire residents, Anne Greig and her daughter Hollie Greig.
Hollie has Downs Syndrome and in her childhood she was sexually abused by a gang of paedophiles in her home city of Aberdeen. Hollie was awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority despite the fact that no-one was ever charged with any crime. Anne and Hollie moved from Aberdeen to Shropshire with the intention of starting a new life.
In 2010 the campaign for Hollie's abusers to be brought to justice gathered considerable momentum in spite of the fact that it has not been reported by the mainstream media. It appears that there are powerful forces attempting to protect Hollie's abusers and to ensure that her story is not told. Unfortunately, Shropshire Council, rather than offering protection and support to these two vulnerable women, have actually subjected them to harassment and intimidation.
The most serious incident occurred on June 3rd 2010 when my clients house was broken into by 3 police officers accompanied by 2 employees of Shropshire Council. Less than 2 hours prior to the break-in I was contacted by DC Ed Bates of West Mercia Police who advised me that Social Services had contacted the police as they had concerns about Hollie's safety and wellbeing. I assured DC Bates that Hollie was safe and well and that she was taking a short holiday with her mother. In spite of my assurances, the Greigs house was raided and was basically vandalised. The police and Council employees were in the property for 3 hours and Anne's computer and various personal items were removed.
I am aware that on June 1st 2010 Social Services in Shropshire were contacted by a Mr Greg Lance-Watkins of Chepstow who claimed to be concern for Hollie's safety and wellbeing. Mr Lance-Watkins, who has never met Hollie, is a full-time blogger who holds various strange and extreme opinions ( a google search of his name will demonstrate this). I am shocked that Shropshire Council appear to have been influenced by this person, who claims to be in contact with Hollie's brother, who is one of the people she has named as having abused her. On June 10th 2010 a photograph which was removed from the Greigs house during the raid appeared on one of Mr Lance-Watkins blogs.
I have written to the Chief Executive of Shropshire Council, Mr Kim Ryley, who assured me that the Council had no prior knowledge of the raid. I have recently learned from the Information Commission that this statement is untrue. I have twice attempted to talk about this matter at Public Meetings of Shropshire Council and have been prevented from doing so although from conversations with individual Councillors it has became clear to me that elected representatives have no knowledge whatsoever of these events.
I believe that Kim Ryley is personally responsible both for the harassment and intimidation of two vulnerable women and for lying in an attempt to cover up his actions. Therefore I consider that he is not a suitable person to hold the postion of Chief Executive of Shropshire Council and I would ask that you take the necessary actions to remove him from office.
I have only provided a short summary of the facts and if you wish to have more information or to see documentary evidence please feel free to contact me.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Green
Monday, January 10, 2011
Freedom Of Speech Under Attack In Shropshire
I will simply let these 2 emails I have received speak for themselves.
To: XXX
CC: Richard.Thomas@shropshire.gov.uk
Subject: Next Council Meeting
From: Penny.Chamberlain@shropshire.gov.uk
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 08:30:52 +0000
Dear Mr Green
Further to your recent email request to Mr Thomas to be sent a copy of the minutes of the last Council meeting, I write to advise that the draft minutes will be considered by Council at their next meeting on 13th January 2011. At that meeting only councillors can consider their accuracy and agree whether to confirm them as a correct record. A copy of these draft minutes will be appended to the Council agenda for the 13th January and these documents will be made available for public viewing on the Council's website by tomorrow lunchtime.
With regard to the possibility of you asking a question at the Council meeting, I would remind you that you have already been advised that you will not be able to do so in relation to Holly and Anne Greig. Further, in light of this and also your attendance at the Council meeting on 9th December 2010 you will not be permitted to attend this forthcoming Council meeting. Your disruptive behaviour at the last meeting not only affected the running of the Council meeting itself but also adversely impacted upon other members of the public present, particularly those who were addressing the Council at the point of your interruption. Consequently you will be refused entrance into Council premises.
Yours sincerely
Claire Porter
Corporate Head of Legal and Democratic Services
(Monitoring Officer)
Tel: 01743 252763
To: XXX
> CC: Keith.Barrow@shropshire.gov.uk; David.Lloyd@shropshire.gov.uk; Kim.Ryley@shropshire.gov.uk; Richard.Thomas@shropshire.gov.uk
> From: Claire.Porter@shropshire.gov.uk
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:51:25 +0000
>
>
> Dear Mr Green,
>
> You have been advised that you will not allowed to enter the Council
> premises this Thursday for the Council meeting. This is still the
> situation and the Leader of the Council, The Speaker , and the Chief
> Executive have confirmed this.
>
> There will be no further correspondence on this matter.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Claire Porter
> Assistant Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer
To: XXX
CC: Richard.Thomas@shropshire.gov.uk
Subject: Next Council Meeting
From: Penny.Chamberlain@shropshire.gov.uk
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 08:30:52 +0000
Dear Mr Green
Further to your recent email request to Mr Thomas to be sent a copy of the minutes of the last Council meeting, I write to advise that the draft minutes will be considered by Council at their next meeting on 13th January 2011. At that meeting only councillors can consider their accuracy and agree whether to confirm them as a correct record. A copy of these draft minutes will be appended to the Council agenda for the 13th January and these documents will be made available for public viewing on the Council's website by tomorrow lunchtime.
With regard to the possibility of you asking a question at the Council meeting, I would remind you that you have already been advised that you will not be able to do so in relation to Holly and Anne Greig. Further, in light of this and also your attendance at the Council meeting on 9th December 2010 you will not be permitted to attend this forthcoming Council meeting. Your disruptive behaviour at the last meeting not only affected the running of the Council meeting itself but also adversely impacted upon other members of the public present, particularly those who were addressing the Council at the point of your interruption. Consequently you will be refused entrance into Council premises.
Yours sincerely
Claire Porter
Corporate Head of Legal and Democratic Services
(Monitoring Officer)
Tel: 01743 252763
To: XXX
> CC: Keith.Barrow@shropshire.gov.uk; David.Lloyd@shropshire.gov.uk; Kim.Ryley@shropshire.gov.uk; Richard.Thomas@shropshire.gov.uk
> From: Claire.Porter@shropshire.gov.uk
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:51:25 +0000
>
>
> Dear Mr Green,
>
> You have been advised that you will not allowed to enter the Council
> premises this Thursday for the Council meeting. This is still the
> situation and the Leader of the Council, The Speaker , and the Chief
> Executive have confirmed this.
>
> There will be no further correspondence on this matter.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Claire Porter
> Assistant Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Kim Ryley Must Resign Or Be Sacked
The position of Kim Ryley, Chief Executive of Shropshire Council, is untenable as he has been exposed as a liar who has played a key role in the ongoing cover-up of the Hollie Greig sexual abuse scandal.
Hollie is a young woman with Downs Syndrome and from the age of 6 she was the victim of a paedophile rape gang in Aberdeen. The authorities in Scotland made no effort to bring Hollie's abusers to justice and indeed she and her mother Anne were persecuted to such an extent that they moved to Shropshire to start a new life.
My own arrest in February 2010 brought Hollie's story to the attention of many people, in spite of a virtual black out on reporting by the mainstream media. Incredibly the persecution of Anne and Hollie continued at the hands of Shropshire Council.
On June 1st 2010 the deranged blogger Greg Lance-Watkins wrote to Shropshire Council expressing his concern for Anne & Hollie's welfare. It beggars belief as to how anyone could take such a letter seriously as Watkins has never met Anne and Hollie and has subjected them and their supporters to vile abuse in his despicable blog. Watkins has previously claimed Gordon Brown "has an enthusiasm for under-age rent boys", has called for the murder of elected politicians and has boasted of his convictions on firearms offences.
On June 3rd at 13:30 I was contacted by DC Ed Bates of West Mercia Police who asked me if I knew of Anne & Hollie's whereabouts. I replied that they were taking a short holiday and were safe and well. At 15:00 that day, Anne & Hollie's house near Shrewsbury was raided by 3 police officers and 2 employees of Shropshire Council. They forced entry to the premises and removed Anne's computer and various other personal items.
On June 10th a photograph which was removed from Anne and Hollie's house appeared on the "Stolen Kids" blog of Greg Lance-Watkins.
Myself and Ian McFerran bombarded Shropshire Council with emails and letters demanding that they explained their role in the raid. Chief Executive Kim Ryley repeatedly stated that the Council knew nothing about the raid until the day after ie June 4th.
Thanks to the persistence of Ian McFerran we have, in recent days, received an email from the Information Commissioner which states:
"we advise that we have identified additional information which confirms that the Council became aware of the "house entry" to Mrs Greig's property on 3 June 2010"
This is clearly a "smoking gun" which proves that Ryley lied about his organisation's inhuman treatment of Anne and Hollie. IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN IMMEDIATELY, THEN HE MUST BE SACKED.
In the latest example of Shropshire Council's attempts to suppress freedom of speech they have told me that I cannot attend the public meeting at the Shire Hall, Shrewsbury at 10:00 on Thursday 13th January and that they will not accept any questions about Hollie's case. I do not give in to bullies so I will be in Shrewsbury on Thursday morning and would urge as many of Hollie's Peaceful Army as possible to attend.
Hollie is a young woman with Downs Syndrome and from the age of 6 she was the victim of a paedophile rape gang in Aberdeen. The authorities in Scotland made no effort to bring Hollie's abusers to justice and indeed she and her mother Anne were persecuted to such an extent that they moved to Shropshire to start a new life.
My own arrest in February 2010 brought Hollie's story to the attention of many people, in spite of a virtual black out on reporting by the mainstream media. Incredibly the persecution of Anne and Hollie continued at the hands of Shropshire Council.
On June 1st 2010 the deranged blogger Greg Lance-Watkins wrote to Shropshire Council expressing his concern for Anne & Hollie's welfare. It beggars belief as to how anyone could take such a letter seriously as Watkins has never met Anne and Hollie and has subjected them and their supporters to vile abuse in his despicable blog. Watkins has previously claimed Gordon Brown "has an enthusiasm for under-age rent boys", has called for the murder of elected politicians and has boasted of his convictions on firearms offences.
On June 3rd at 13:30 I was contacted by DC Ed Bates of West Mercia Police who asked me if I knew of Anne & Hollie's whereabouts. I replied that they were taking a short holiday and were safe and well. At 15:00 that day, Anne & Hollie's house near Shrewsbury was raided by 3 police officers and 2 employees of Shropshire Council. They forced entry to the premises and removed Anne's computer and various other personal items.
On June 10th a photograph which was removed from Anne and Hollie's house appeared on the "Stolen Kids" blog of Greg Lance-Watkins.
Myself and Ian McFerran bombarded Shropshire Council with emails and letters demanding that they explained their role in the raid. Chief Executive Kim Ryley repeatedly stated that the Council knew nothing about the raid until the day after ie June 4th.
Thanks to the persistence of Ian McFerran we have, in recent days, received an email from the Information Commissioner which states:
"we advise that we have identified additional information which confirms that the Council became aware of the "house entry" to Mrs Greig's property on 3 June 2010"
This is clearly a "smoking gun" which proves that Ryley lied about his organisation's inhuman treatment of Anne and Hollie. IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN IMMEDIATELY, THEN HE MUST BE SACKED.
In the latest example of Shropshire Council's attempts to suppress freedom of speech they have told me that I cannot attend the public meeting at the Shire Hall, Shrewsbury at 10:00 on Thursday 13th January and that they will not accept any questions about Hollie's case. I do not give in to bullies so I will be in Shrewsbury on Thursday morning and would urge as many of Hollie's Peaceful Army as possible to attend.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Letter Sent To Grampian Police
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1125202/Taxpayers-face-170-000-police-repeatedly-arrest-stripper-impersonating-officer.html
ACC Colin Menzies
Grampian Police
Queen St
ABERDEEN
AB10 1ZA
4th January 2010
Dear ACC Menzies
I act as lay legal representative for anne and Hollie greig, both formerly Mackie.
In the public interest, please confirm how much money has been spent by your force on Hollie's allegations and subsequent investigations made in 2000 and 2009. Also please provide the figure for the work required for Anne's complaints against Grampian Police that led to a Police Complaints Commission inquiry.
Additionally, please advise me of the current amount of money spent so far in dealing with my case, following my arrest on 12th February 2010.
You were challenged over the costs incurred by your force in the case of Mr Stuart Kennedy, I am informed to be a male stripper, who wore a police uniform as part of his occupation, which I understood ran to £170,000. You were quoted as justifying this outlay by saying that you had a duty to investigate all reports of alleged criminal behaviour.
I have a number of very serious allegations of this category to report, but my bail conditions preclude me from entering your area. I must tell you that some of the allegations relate to officers in your force, real police officers, not imaginery ones like Mr Kennedy.
Could you therefore propose the most realistic method of conveying these allegations to your force ?
Yours sincerely,
Robert Green
ACC Colin Menzies
Grampian Police
Queen St
ABERDEEN
AB10 1ZA
4th January 2010
Dear ACC Menzies
I act as lay legal representative for anne and Hollie greig, both formerly Mackie.
In the public interest, please confirm how much money has been spent by your force on Hollie's allegations and subsequent investigations made in 2000 and 2009. Also please provide the figure for the work required for Anne's complaints against Grampian Police that led to a Police Complaints Commission inquiry.
Additionally, please advise me of the current amount of money spent so far in dealing with my case, following my arrest on 12th February 2010.
You were challenged over the costs incurred by your force in the case of Mr Stuart Kennedy, I am informed to be a male stripper, who wore a police uniform as part of his occupation, which I understood ran to £170,000. You were quoted as justifying this outlay by saying that you had a duty to investigate all reports of alleged criminal behaviour.
I have a number of very serious allegations of this category to report, but my bail conditions preclude me from entering your area. I must tell you that some of the allegations relate to officers in your force, real police officers, not imaginery ones like Mr Kennedy.
Could you therefore propose the most realistic method of conveying these allegations to your force ?
Yours sincerely,
Robert Green
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)