Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Angiolini and Bowen - Update

At present, official responses are being awaited about Sheriff Principal Bowen`s failure to disclose details of his long-term boardroom acquaintance with Elish Angiolini and about the complaint made about the latter over the alleged theft of public funds.

In the case of the former, the Scottish Law Reporter provided an excellent updated report on 7th February and there has been a very good article about the trial, prior to the uncovering of Bowen`s concealment, in the UK Column on 25th January, stating its opinion that Scotland is now, unsurprisingly, Europe`s paedophile capital. It certainly seems to be the only country that I am aware of where the powers-that-be tacitly support the rape of its own children and the disabled.

Other helpful pieces and films have also appeared in the public domain.

With regard to Angiolini`s refusal to cooperate with the Queen`s appointed officer over the payments to Levy & McRae, Sergeant Hogg, of Central Police, has informed me today that it has now been passed to Lothian & Borders, as the alleged crime was believed to have been committed in that area.

This matter should not take long to resolve. All Angiolini has to do to establish her innocence is to provide proof that she paid the law firm out of her personal funds, although this was something she felt unable to do when questioned on this very issue by the Freedom of Information Commissioner over a six-month period.

Finally, whilst I am a great advocate of free speech and freedom of expression, I have noticed that the comments section is sometimes being used as a vehicle for expressing forceful views about persons and issues not directly connected to the subject of the blog. Therefore, I would appreciate it if those concerned would be courteous enough to restrict their views by relating them to the content of the blogs on this site.

100 comments:

  1. Such a great advocate Robert that you exercise censorship...

    I do believe sir you have now answered the essential question that was being raised in that exchange...

    ReplyDelete
  2. - And now they're back? Hmm

    Well; I guess at least that leaves the Jury still out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert, due to the obvious abuse of the comments section of this blog, I suggest that the facility is shutdown. If I've got anything useful to say, then I'll send you an email. You can then be more selective about who you wish to hear from.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It may be a good idea to close the comments, there are a lot of strange people about and the comments seem to have upset a few regular supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Robert is, I believe at liberty to shut down the comments, and thereby stop the awkward questions being asked...

    Indeed, for around 30 minutes today the 'awkward' posts were deleted... Thus my opening comment above and its follow up.

    Of course a much more legitimate strategy would be to cogently counter the supposedly 'upsetting' points that have been made and answer the questions that have been posed... Put everyone's mind at rest...

    But deflection, innuendo, false identities, evasion and censorship will tell us a great deal too...

    We await developments with interest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would agree with closing the comments section on this blog as well. Robert's comments/up-dates are all that's needed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why is that Ian? Getting close to the truth are we?

    What about the "Free Speech" Robert so fondly speaks of?

    See Belinda! This is what happens when a few "Awkward" questions are asked and why we don't get the opportunity to "have a go at Robert" as you put it!!

    I am just about to post a few things...if the comments stay open that is!

    Firstly, will be a reply to Belinda's post.

    Secondly will be a reply to Matt.

    Then, i intend to ask a few more questions.

    Meanwhile, you might want to take a look over on...

    http://robertgreenandthemissingpieces.blogspot.com/2012/02/we-at-missing-pieces-like-puzzles.html#comment-form

    They seem to have things correct over there!

    It is my understanding Ian that you are quite an intelligent individual? Don't worry about saving face will you....because if you are, you should be able to work out that this is all bullshit mate!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Running the show are we now Ian?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes i agree Ian; I don't enjoy getting in to verbal ping pong.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Robert has enough on his plate without these attacks on his blog! If you have things to say about the campaign or any other subject - say them on your own blogs!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Perfectly legitimate questions have been raised - Entirely relevant to the matters in hand.

    Robert faces jail for one of two reasons...

    1) He was tricked into following a course of behaviour that was guaranteed to lead to a conviction by people who wish to make a bankable asset of him...

    2) He is himself complicit in an agenda to seek celebrity on the conspiracy theory circuit.

    Even now he has options that could save him from jail. These DON'T involve letting Angiolini off the hook. And DON'T involve abandoning Hollie's case...

    If he is the man I hope he is he will come to realise that these 'attacks' are in his best interests... But if jail is his ambition; well that will become apparent.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Indeed Matt.....but perhaps it's all....PART OF THE PLAN!

    Oh, and i fear he is going to let you down Matt.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Perhaps Pyrite... Perhaps.

    I often tell my students: My job is to pass the rope out. You either climb it or loop it 'round your own neck.

    See it dangle? So clear and pure in white in the light of this full moon? Fine and strong it is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. carrot-and-stick leave the man alone, he's done more than you arse holes put together. Clyde devote your time to your students that's if you have any, time spent on here.

    I think jealousy is in order here don't you!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I see the admin on holliedemandsjustice.org (I don't know who it is) feels it is ok to make underhand comments about me and others.
    I am going to ignore this, I see the website is still using the photographs I provided for the campaign and is linked to all the videos I made of Robert campaigning, so these are the important things - rather than name calling.

    obviously once any forum/comments section descends into name calling it is just a waste of everyone's time!

    I would say to those of you who wish to discuss the case without prejudice that Robert's blog is not the place to do so - the man is still in the middle of a campaign and cannot publicly be bi-partizan.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Where then Sarah?

    Eng65 - I lecture PART time - by invite; it's not my main job. My primary business is producing television programmes. And your inference is correct; I have dedicated quite a bit of time to Hollie's case. - and I've done that without renumeration or seeking expenses of ANY kind.

    And that HAS kept me from my paying work; but then I can afford it! - That doesn't matter. What matters is that Hollie's rapists are stopped from harming other children.

    Yet again though you deflect from the fact that what is under question is not Robert per se - But those who seem to be orchestrating strategies that are:-

    a) Likely to damage their stated aims and objectives...

    b) Bound to fail... Designed to fail

    c) Ultimately linked to someone who seems to have made a professional career out of creating 'black holes' for donations made to various 'lost causes'.

    d) Ultimately linked to someone who seems to have a history of 'stage managing'various characters on the conspiracy theory stage.

    Again - The name calling is risible. Perfectly valid questions have been raised. And there has been not one word by way of a cogent rebuttal or response. - This in the face of corroborating evidence that reflects a sound basis for the queries raised.

    The matter of Robert's sentencing remains at hand. The question is he TRYING to 'wind up' the Sheriff and ENSURE he is jailed. If so, to what end? Martyrdom?

    As I have oft-repeated now; he was convicted by summary process. That IS perfectly ususal in relatively trivial matters such as Breach Of The Peace - And that IS a mechanistic process...

    IF that process has been interfered with; it will be obvious to any lawyer who is trained to understand the mechanism - There is, as I've said, almost zero scope for personal 'jusdgement' in terms of determining the verdict in a summary case...

    So, I'm afraid Robert's notions of it all being a Masonic plot simply do NOT hold water; if that were the case it would be easily proven...

    Similarly; the sheriff in such a case is actually OBLIGED to ensure that only relevant matters are heard in court.

    I would contend that this IS one of the reasons Robert was prosecuted using this mechanism. Angiolini is of course a legal expert and it would be elementary knowledge to her that she could not be made take the stand - it was just never going to happen!

    Questionmarks DO hang over Angiolini and others...

    Much as Robert seems to have played into their hands by presenting a 'defence' that was bound to fail ( shades of Shayler there). - The summary nature of the (inappropriate) charge brought against him coupled to the lengths travelled to execute the prosecution indicate something is very VERY wrong here...

    As was the case when GLW did his dirty deeds - Hollie's case remains unprosecutable thanks to the amount of material flying around. And the crazy, unlawful 'loose cannon' accusations against that creep onto sites like HDJ EVERY TIME the case is just about to be broken to some degree indicate that SOMEONE close to the source actually doesn't WANT the case to break...

    The importance of Hollie's case should not be forgotten.

    But in the matter of Angiolini and the basic failures that lead ultimately to the stage we are at now there lie further important questions that need to be answered.

    Carried on along the lines they are being taken both Hollie's case and matters pertaining to Robert's prosecution are following the same of familiar 'McKenzie Pattern'.

    Hollie's of course now being at the stage where the hat is being passed 'round...

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have now blocked all 5 Ian McFerrans from my Facebook friends list, also I have reblocked Stuart Usher and so many Belinda McKenzies that I lost count, but two of them were male Nelinda McKenzies. Anyway, all of them are blocked now. I have also taken the I AM A MUG, KICK ME sign off my back and am leaving the circus tent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Barbara,

      I'm sorry you have felt the need to block me on Facebook and I will, naturally, respect your decision. However, as you didn't approach me at all about any issues you may have with me personally, may I ask exactly why you blocked me as your entry here is the first I knew there was any problem?

      I am not taking it personally, I'm just a bit confused as none of the comments on this thread appear to relate to Robert's initial entry (hence my agreement to close the comments) and, as far as I can see, I do not appear to have said or done anything specifically in respect of dishonouring or exploiting you. In fact, I only made that one 'close the comments' entry. So, I hope you can see my confusing here.

      As I say, I will respect your decision but, if you would please let me know why you took that course of action, it would be appreciated as this may ensure I don't do it again with someone else.

      Many thanks.

      Ian

      Delete
  18. I am not sure Matt but with your - and other's (pyrite?) - extensive knowledge of the blogosphere I imagine a different site would not be too difficult to find?

    for these reasons;

    1. It is quite obvious that Robert's blog has gone rogue, there are no admins or moderators and Robert himself does not know how to comment, delete comments or block commenters. He is at an unfair advantage.

    2. The information that is being presented in the comments section - whether you agree or not - is important and needs to be housed more securely.

    I'm not suggesting you do all the work Matt, these are just my thoughts

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am not sure Matt but with your - and other's (pyrite?) - extensive knowledge of the blogosphere I imagine a different site would not be too difficult to find?

    for these reasons;

    1. It is quite obvious that Robert's blog has gone rogue, there are no admins or moderators and Robert himself does not know how to comment, delete comments or block commenters. He is at an unfair advantage.

    2. The information that is being presented in the comments section - whether you agree or not - is important to the Hollie Greig case and needs to be housed more securely.

    I'm not suggesting you do all the work Matt, these are just my thoughts

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was at an unfair disadvantage when I felt compelled to attend the Stoke On Trent Rally, because of the rumours that John Hemming MP was to attend, having had an eye operation the day before, and my eye stinging like hell, to have to get on a train and attend that rally only to discover that Hemming had actually been invited, and to be heckled and moaned at by Hemmings UK Column Worshippers was not a good experience, I can tell you. Getting nasty comments about what a freak I looked was also not nice. Of course I looked like a freak, I had just had my blinking eye operated on!

    I am still waiting (probably in vain) for Brian Gerrish to return the documents I foolishly entrusted him with, and I asked him to use just a few pennies of the very generous donation I stupidly gave him, when I believed that he was using donated funds to prevent child abuse.

    What stands out so strikingly for me is how none of the so called Justice For Hollie team want to talk about Colin Tucker - very strange, considering it is right on Hemmings doorstep.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sarah can you just explain what physically happens when someone who was an admin on a site having in the case of John actually built it then relinquishes their involvement with it. Did he/you hand over to anyone else, who then would have changed the login details presumably, if so who is that person? And if there is such a person why aren't they doing anything to moderate since as everyone knows Robert is not technical himself? Or, if Robert has no one new helping him this means surely the login details haven't been changed and you still have them, doesn't it? I also am not technical so I don't know how these things work but am concerned that noone is helping protect Robert here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For someone who speaks posh, you’re written English is damn poor isn't it? Maybe you’re not "Technical" with language either!

      Hey everyone....is it all a front do you think? You know....fur coat no knickers sort of thing?

      I mean, i know the kids of today cannot read, write or use grammar very well...but this sort of thing is exactly what surrounds Robert. Even if he was correct in what he was doing.....don't think he would have a chance really.

      Just my opinion. :)

      Delete
    2. Belinda, to my knowledge Robert is the sole person that has access to posting on and moderating his blog, if he has given access details to anyone else, I don't know about it. Anyone can comment and to my knowledge nobody has ever been blocked, according to Robert he does not know how to comment, delete comments or block commenters. I believe him and the evidence is there to bear this out; 160 comments on the previous blog and counting.

      Your question about why nobody is helping him is a good one, why is nobody helping him?

      Delete
    3. Why is nobody helping him? Perhaps because no one wants to help out a con man…what do you think?

      And also, I have reliable information that Anne was the only other one to have the password to “Stolen Kids”….who is running that now??

      de ja vu anyone!!

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  22. Glad to see you posting here Belinda. I would email you but I don't want anyone else from your circle of friends to set Stafford Police on a false errand, falsely accusing me of sending malicious emails again. Can you give a message to your good friend Brian Gerrish? Can you tell him, Barbara Richards said , "Please can I have my money and my documents back please? " I'm sure he doesn't need my money, as the Cause seems to be very well funded already without taking from a pauper like me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah! Big DONATION button on HDJ!!

      Where does it all go do you think?

      Be good to have some transparency wouldn’t it!

      Although if it’s a charity there are rules about that....but then they do have individuals working for them that would be able to circumnavigate those rules i guess....

      Still, worth a look I think…

      Delete
  23. I will keep a sharp look out for men in white vehicles carrying rocks stoving them through peoples windows then trying to creep off without being seen. I would not like anyone else in my family to have any more windows smashed in by Rentathug, or to have their dustbins tipped all over the place either.

    ReplyDelete
  24. How the hell Brian Gerrish is mixed up in all of this I'll never understand!

    Or maybe it's just because the whole damn lot of them are out to do an icke!

    Money money money money money money money!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Pyrite, after I gave John Hemming and Brian Gerrish a good tougue lashing at Stoke my mum had her window smashed in by two men, and she also had her bins tipped out all over the street, and so did my sister. And it was not kids who did it - it was two men - they were seen by the neighbours - everyone is dead nosy where I live - thank God!

    ReplyDelete
  26. ZP I have always had a good impression of Brian...probably the only one of the main protagonist that i haven't met. Although they wouldn't know me lol, i like to keep a low profile for this very reason. Not that i am scared, i am rather large and can take care of myself very well. But like most, i have vulnerable people around me....

    I have heard whisperings about this regarding Brian and UK collumn....I think it's long overdue now that we looked a little more critically about these organisations, and the individuals concerned.


    Let’s address something quickly while I have the time.

    Isn’t it strange how Robert has never ever had a debate? The only time he had anyone question him was Mark Daly. Daly asked one perfectly normal question and green completely went loopy! Robert Green does not debate because it would detract from his STORY

    We all have to sit around and listen like good boys and girls; funny how the intelligent ones have run for the hills isn’t it!

    What’s left (and I mean no disrespect) are the more fragile, the needy, the weak opposition, and you are being exploited like hell!!

    Let him come on here…..I’m sure someone can show him how to type on a blog!! Let him explain all this stuff that needs to be explained…..do you think he will? LMFAO!!! NO WAY!

    He manages to type harassing emails though doesn’t he!

    But this is exactly his way….he lets others do his dirty work and the he can sit back and say “oh I didn’t know!!” …“it’s all a conspiracy!!”

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, all I can say is that I don't think much of a man who thinks it is ok to con a child abuse survivor out of money she can't really afford - to put it in Biblical language, the widows mite.

    I gave him that money because I truly believed that he and Belinda McKenzie and the UK Column were trying to stop institutional child abuse, so that the horrible things that happened to me wouldn't happen to anyone else.

    I just feel really disgusted now. He won't even send me my documents back, and when he phoned me up and I asked him if I could speak to Mike Robinson, to sort out why he lied to me Brian was really nasty to me, he accused me of picking a fight, he was trying to make out I am aggressive, and thats not true. I'm not an aggressive person at all, but I don't like being taken for a mug, who would? He's always spouting out about people needing to speak up, but then to accuse me of picking fights because of wanting to get to the bottom of why Mike Robinson told me a deliberate lie is not on!

    ReplyDelete
  28. I hope that money that organisation conned me out of burns a great big hole in all their pockets. I hope God rewards them for stealing the widows mite.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That's a very typical response ZP...and that is why i am doing what i am doing. These individuals are simply exploiting people in the false name of……. whatever they want to make up!!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Funny how so many people are wanting to close the comments section of this blog down. These are the very people who are always harping on about free speech and stopping gagging. Its been an eye opening few days for me. I feel really sick and angry about what I have found out so far. I have felt for ages that things weren't right, but I could not put my finger on what was wrong. I was always having to give people the benefit of the doubt, and make excuses for their not being 100% straightforward. It just makes me feel sick to think that anyone could exploit people they knew damned well were fragile and vulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Belinda and Robert, you should probably do something about the blog and comments as it is complete carnage. Would Ian Parker Joseph help you?
    Robert changed the password when John handed over the blog, so he is the only one that can do anything about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where IS Robert? Probably sunning himself on some beach with all the money from the donate button - Belinda feeding him grapes - both wearing tin foil hats to keep away the aliens, and watching for the giant tsunami that will come ashore when the pole shifts for 2012

      Oh and I wouldn’t bother about Robert, you will probably need to hack it because

      ROBERT HAS FORGOTTON THE PASSWORD AND HOW TO DO IT LOL LOL

      Delete
  32. What harm can free speech do to a just cause? Sarah, I detest child abuse, and that is the reason I am so concerned about the Colin Tucker situation. I would have thought John Hemming would be just as concerned, but all there has been from him on that subject is a stone wall of complete silence. I find that really incredible.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ian,

    The reason that I decided to block you on Facebook is because you had multiple identities, and, as I have been hacked several times on facebook and also had friends appear in my friends list that I know I never invited (including one who didnt even have a name, just a strange blue logo of hands holding a child) I just feel I need to be careful of who I am friends with. Also, you are avocating blocking the comments here on this blog, and that worries me a great deal.

    Sorry if it sounds like I am accusing you of anything - I'm not, but I just need to try to keep myself safe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forget it ZP...he is a well and truly hooked!

      Take my word for it.

      Delete
    2. Hello Barbara,

      Many thanks for explaining that. I totally understand you need to be cautious and, as I said, I will respect your decision.

      I would just like to put your mind at rest about two things, if I may?

      1) I only have ONE account. I have no idea who the others are.
      2) My comment where I agreed with closing the comments is based on, well, all of the above comments. This is, after all, Robert Green's blog, created with the express purpose of keeping people up to date on events with the case. Nothing more, nothing less. So, as some contributors appear to be redirected people away from Robert's actual blogging itself, I made that comment - which was just that, a comment, not an order.

      However, that aside, thank you again for explaining what you did and, whilst I can assure you that you are certainly wrong about me having multiple accounts, I will respect your view.

      Best wishes.

      Ian

      Delete
    3. Ian a wise man I knew used to say never try to reason with the unreasonable or argue with an idiot , you have both with pieshites

      Delete
  34. Hello Barbara,

    Thank you explaining that. As I said, I will respect your decision but please be assured, I only have ONE profile. Who the others are, I have on idea or interest. Likewise, I only use one email address as that is all I need. However, I totally understand your need to be cautious and thank you again for putting my mind at rest on this point.

    As for agreeing on the idea to close the comments section, all I can say is: take a look above! I still agree with Sarah McLeod that this blog is being used for what it was not intended. This is Robert Green's blog, created to provide up-dates for people interested in the case, nothing more. My comment was just my opinion (Robert's blog appears to have become quite a haven for these) but I am not 'ordering' or 'commanding' that it should occur, as I am not in a position to do that. It was simply a comment based on what I was witnessing and the fact that this website was clearly created as an up-date blog only.

    Best wishes,

    Ian

    ReplyDelete
  35. Make no mistake, this is NOT just a blog to keep people up to date!

    If it was, it would have been set up that way in the first place.

    It is a "tool" for a job. One of many in "Hollies army" that is here to show how much "Support" HDJ is getting.

    Well, to create the illusion anyhow!!

    Oh and your other accounts Ian were probably set up by George....he likes to make up fake accounts of all sorts LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh and your other accounts Ian were probably set up by George....he likes to make up fake accounts of all sorts LOL!


    Really Dale using my full name again,told you that was for real human being ,you know not dirty low life judas backsatbbers or is that pieshites or justyc or agentcooper or Lynn or just good old hypocrite ?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ian,

    Thanks for coming on here and explaining. I have tried to unblock you, but its difficult, as I dont want to unblock all the other fake id people who are using your name. I'm not sure if I have managed it, but you could try friending me again.

    Sorry if I've offended you, but I am just trying to keep myself safe, there are so many awful people playing tricks.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I have proof that ROBERT GREEN is a government agent working for an international conspiracy of freemasons protected by the UN and EU.

    Green will be sentenced to prison but will not actually go to jail and he will really be sunning himself on a desert island with his elite freinds.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This what the Hollie Greig Campaign had to put up with. A 'conspiracy' is a bad thing. It can be, depending on who is actually involved, seditious, evil, treasonous, fraudulent and, perhaps least of all, illegal. It implies a well-coordinated plot to manipulate circumstances for the betterment of an elite few while victimising the innocent. Some conspiracies are small scale. Like the owner of a cockroach infested restaurant bribing a health inspector to look the other way. Some actual conspiracies are much grander.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well I hope you are not accusing me of conspiring against anyone Eng65. I am a victim of child abuse myself, and I hate child abuse. Thats why I am so concerned about what has been going on! I am really puzzled about why Belinda McKenzie has been cosying up to two men that I know for a fact to have done their utmost to shove child abuse under the carpet - Lord Falconer and John Hemmings. I wrote to both those men about Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager, and the use of their invented syndromes in this country. I showed my own MP Bill Cash some of the disgusting things Ralph Underwager said and he told me to carry on campaigning against the evil, and he also told me he was the one who set up Operation Ore. I wish he would bring it up in Parliament, but at least Ken Clark has done something to stop mens rights groups and corrupt law firms getting lots of legal aid money by using the clap trap that awful pervert Gardner invented.

    I was shocked when I saw that picture of Belinda McKenzie with that pair, plus Jonathon Sacks. Would she care to explain what she was doing with those men, and also who the other man is? She may say it is none of our business, well I say it is.

    I don't want to disrupt and true action for justice at all, I just want some answers. And I don't think Belinda McKenzie should be allowing people on her blog site to call people like me nasty names either.

    ReplyDelete
  41. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the+operation+of+the+family+court+lord+falconer+jump&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGQQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2Fupload%2Ffamilyjusticememopart1.pdf&ei=eUw1T97nIcOn0AXu9ZyXAg&usg=AFQjCNGRaO03Fbg2CPOtn9_GFDZhXWCzYQ&sig2=NElqhjAjPqnhSCM5I1ar5g


    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the+operation+of+the+family+court+lord+falconer&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fzoompad.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F06%2Fi-missed-this-one-lord-falconer-in.html&ei=eEs1T-H4EYqH0AW6s5GaAg&usg=AFQjCNG_jkSwtad_Pvc_aFwyWKeDWuZsHg&sig2=IjPdxOt9D_v63rjtmByBvw

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the+operation+of+the+family+court+lord+falconer&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fzoompad.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F05%2Flord-falconer-part-2.html&ei=eEs1T-H4EYqH0AW6s5GaAg&usg=AFQjCNGAk9D66-xgPvMjRmJGHq6o0yUk_w&sig2=00NCd0I_wBdqnU7QhLiuMA

    ReplyDelete
  42. http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ludwig+fred+lowenstein+HAMPSHIRE+COUNTY+COUNCIL&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFsQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carestandardstribunal.gov.uk%2FJudgments%2Fj731%2F317.%2520Ludwig%2520Fred%2520Lowenstein%2C%2520Katherine%2520Brenda%2520Lowenstein%2520v%2520Hampshire%2520County%2520Council.doc&ei=sE41T7TdCeOh0QWY2JyYAg&usg=AFQjCNFXs6xpeo9nmgHd6l3RwCLQIF2QKg&sig2=dohsqy697aGWgKyzF5eBOg

    ReplyDelete
  43. As the other thread has over 200 comments now…and you have to click the words “load more” at the bottom of the page (and some people won’t be able to work that out!) I thought I would post this very interesting piece here.


    Here is Belinda’s latest attempt at rallying the troops once more!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0US5GLUloU

    Swing in a take a look at around the 4 minute mark and you will hear Belinda explaining how Hollie, whilst in a refuge with her mom, complained that she wanted to go back and get the dogs!

    Anne apparently said that the dogs will be ok.

    “Oh not they won’t” says Hollie…”and she began to explain to her mom why”, exclaims Belinda.

    So, Hollie was afraid that her dad was going to kill the dogs, as APPARENTLY he had told Hollie he would, along with her mother!

    Lets see if Hollie really was afraid of that…..Cue the video!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=CzUwy1ai2p0

    At 3.25 Hollie explains that she didn’t believe her dad would kill her dog or her mother!

    AND HOLLIE CANNOT LIE!

    But she can tell the truth……if she is told IT IS THE TRUTH!!

    This is only one of many inconsistent stories from Anne, and Hollie.


    Oh, and personally...i HATE the way Anne speaks to Hollie and asks/tells her to "sit up" just before the presenter asks her the questions! Listen to the tone...see if you can hear it too!

    ReplyDelete
  44. I can't hear anything nasty in Anne's tone, and what Hollie said, well perhaps Hollie felt confident in her mum being able to protect her.

    It's Belinda McKenzie that worries me in all of this. That photo, where did it come from? I would like to know what the discussion they were having was about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZP..not sure if you understand.

      EVERYONE..including Belinda in her recent video states that Hollie was afraid that her dog/s were going to be killed.

      But Hollie states herself that she DIDN'T believe that her dad would do it!

      So it makes no sense that she would be AFRAID of it.

      As for the Tone...ok...but i saw the way Hollie shot up as soon as Anne said it....just seems strange to me.

      Delete
  45. A quote from the FAQ's of http://holliedemandsjustice.org/faq/

    Q. Who is this Greg Lance Watkins and what part does he play in the story?

    A. In 2009 Greg Lance Watkins (GLW) made contact with Anne Greig by telephone and appeared supportive of Hollie’s and her campaign. He set up a website in order to promote the campaign called Stolen Kids–Hollie blogspot. After a few months however Anne began to have suspicions about GLW whom she’d never met, for one main reason – the manner in which he tried to force her to request money from people, which she did not want to do. Despite her unwillingness, he went ahead and set up a PayPal account. Hence in April 2010 Anne severed relations with him.

    SAY HELLO TO THE BIG DONATE BUTTON ON THERE NOW!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Want some more? Ok then...

    "It is a remarkable fact that none of the 22 named by Hollie have so far taken any steps in law to redress the damage to their reputations, with the exception of Sheriff Graham (Graeme in Scotland) Buchanan who is suing Robert Green for certain expenses incurred in the period November 2009 to April 2010"

    And why not...he was the wrong Buchanan!!

    Great investigating ROBERT!!

    And is it really so surprising that these people didn't want to come into the mainstream media circus and have their reputations decimated because of an idiot with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

    For which btw they would get no recompense for...

    I don't think so...as any RATIONAL thinking individual will agree.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Want even more?......ok then.

    Another quote from the FAQ's

    "Robert has collected corroborating testimony of other victims which in due course will be revealed."

    How did he get that then? Remember...he has said many times that he had not been to Aberdeen before his arrest!!

    Lies,lies,lies,lies,lies,lies,lies

    Money, money,money,money,money,money

    ReplyDelete
  48. And to finish for tonight!

    The Pièce de résistance....

    For those that have not heard the Tony Legend when Mark Daly and Robert and Anne was on there...here is the transcript.

    Hollie has also described being taken by minibus from the school to gatherings for sex and other practices in the house of Jack and Evelyn Buchanan, along with 7 other children whom she has named.

    MD: Tony now...er...as part of this paedophile ring, the ringleader is the sheriff, he’s also involved with his sister and his sister’s wife. Now Robert being an investigator, Truth Ranger as he’s been called, will of course have made sure that these relationships exist. The truth Tony, is that this sheriff has no sister, therefore has no brother-in-law. Okay. So you know, these are the main people of the paedophile ring and two of them don’t exist. Okay. Now, shall I move on?

    TL: Yeah, I’d just like to ...Anne, would you like to say anything to that?

    AG: That’s not true at all

    MD: Well these things as you know are checkable through the register of births, deaths and marriage, marriages and er ask Robert to maybe have a look at that. Now next...

    AG: I think you must have the wrong sheriff there

    TL: sorry, say that again there Anne

    AG: I think you must have got the wrong sheriff

    MD: No I don’t have the wrong sheriff Anne I’m afraid, I don’t. Now, if I can just continue

    TL: Yeah, continue

    MD: It’s been said, well firstly, the allegations were made at first in 2000 and many of the allegations were said to have... some of the abuse was said to have taken place in the sheriff’s house in Aberdeen. This sheriff...

    AG: That’s not true

    MD: Well Anne, I’ve seen some of the allegations and it is true

    AG: Ah that’s not true, that’s not what we told you.

    MD: He didn’t live in Aberdeen until 2000. He didn’t live in Aberdeen until 2000

    RG: We never said that

    MD: He only lived there in 2000. These are the kind of things...

    AG: We never said his house. At all. We never mentioned his house at all

    MD: It has been said Anne. It has been said. These are the kind of things that investigators investigate to see whether or not they can proceed with a story. Now can I move on?

    AG: That was never said at all that it was at his house.

    MD: Okay, well I think you have, have said that. That allegation has been made Anne.
    if you read that - it says jack and Evelyn Buchannan house Hollie was taken to - but if they did not exist whose house was Hollie talking about -and the sheriff had not lived in the area until about 2000 did Robert not find that out - he would have done if he had gone to the council offices in Aberdeen and checked


    Of course to most supporters its a simply case of Mark Lying....

    That is untrue....I CAN ASSURE YOU!

    And this once again shows the ineptitude of George Robert Green!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Oh my stars! I don't know what to say.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Did you not listen to the show Barbara; you'll find it on YouTube...

    My own comments of the time are here...

    http://the-can-of-worms.blogspot.com/2010/07/part-2-outing-of-robert-green.html - Unfortunately the link to the recording no longer works.

    You might also find it useful to go through the blog and see how it evolved over time... It'll a while mind...

    ReplyDelete
  51. Sorry not to have answered you sooner Barbara, it's been a busy week, have glanced now and again at the blog but no time to input! The photo in which I am alleged to be in close proximity to Lord Falconer and the Chief Rabbi at a parliamentary meeting is in fact the meeting in January 2010 of the APPG on Ending and Preventing War, chaired by Elfyn Llwyd MP. Left to right are Elfyn, Chris Coverdale, Jean Andrews of Brighton not Nottingham, Paul Flynn MP and John Hemming MP. The APPG was suspended while Elfyn sought re-election and did not reconvene thereafter as I by that time was immersed in Hollie & unprosecuted paedophilia which I felt was a more urgent cause as many are trying to stop war in various ways (although Chris Coverdale had a particularly interesting and unique formula for doing so), but almost no one is addressing this very dark issue of children being preyed upon by paedophiles at the highest level of society with their peers covering up for them. Well I don't want to be ruled by a class of people who practice or condone the abuse and torture of young children because if they can do that with no feeling whatsoever for the suffering of their helpless victims, what else can't they do to cause mayhem and misery on this planet. Time to flush these deviant people out of public life, I’d say and I'll take a bet that if we do, the world might suddenly become a better place in all other respects too.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This again on Friday evening and still catching up after busy week is to Birmingham-based PYRITE, star of this comment-thread, no adjectives needed! We know all about you and who you are Pyrite, hiding behind your avatar like so many others too cowardly to reveal themselves openly, thus is the internet culture of our day. Hollie is blessed at last a webmaster who is monumentally shrewd in identifying people via their electronic footprints online, and let me tell you, we have you ALL by now and are going to expose you!! Some are slightly higher in the honesty/integrity stakes such as Clydesdale/Matt Quinn whom I slated midweek as “Clydesdale lowlife”, sorry for that Matt, in my exasperation at the way Robert’s blog was being taken over I hit out at you, forgetting your role in the campaign. So of course you responded by hurling everything you had on me back. No worries, water under the bridge. I’m sure you are popular with your students.
    Robert says ignore anyone negative, defamatory etc. because the more such people whatever drives them continue to rant and froth (the sarcasm and attempts at satire such types deploy to mask their seething rage constitute a very thin veneer) only serves to confirm their true identity.
    So with our clever webmaster Ian busily checking electronic footprints and everyone hanging themselves by their own noose publicly by the very comments they have been making, it’s been a very satisfactory week in the interests of what Robert would term “free speech and freedom of expression” on his blog, bring it on!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “This again on Friday evening and still catching up after busy week is to Birmingham-based PYRITE.”
      “and let me tell you, we have you ALL by now and are going to expose you!!”

      Does this mean I might get a knock on my door from Robert?...... GOOD!

      Although he’ll be knocking on the WRONG DOOR! Because I don’t even live in that county!!

      And let me explain why some of us “hide” as you put it. (Btw…where is Robert?..pot and kettle eh!)

      It is my opinion that there are some very disturbed and dangerous individuals in this campaign Belinda…you may be one of them! I certainly don’t want to meet your alleged polish friends….and I don’t want my mother‘s windows broken or my bins tipped out all over the street as happened to Zoompad!

      If that’s not enough….there’s more!

      It is not beyond the realms of possibility that at any time I could have a bunch of raving loonies outside my door protesting I am a paedophile!

      “Robert always says why do people have to use these funny names and hide behind them”

      Because the insane warriors that follow their God have spent years attacking people that have asked the simplest of questions. They are hounded abused & terrorised by a small number of his pathetic little arm of wannabeees. (sorry Matt, but it has to be said)

      SO WHERE DO WE COME OUT AND FIGHT THEN ROBERT!!!!! No-one - but no-one has EVER been able to ask questions!! GET A FORUM GOING THEN ROBERT - I WOULD LOVE TO COME OUT IN THE OPEN AND DISCUSS THINGS WITH YOU - FACE TO FACE.

      And Headworm, you are 100% correct! If I get a knock on my door….then I know something ILLEGAL has taken place.

      Then, 2 things will happen. Video will be recorded and the police will be called.

      I think that will do for now.

      “the sarcasm and attempts at satire such types deploy to mask their seething rage”

      Yes, that is correct! I am raging at the fact that to me, it seriously looks like delicate and vulnerable individuals are being exploited! I make no bones about it!

      Matt is also correct Belinda, no one has accused you of Embezzling anything! Nor has anybody been libelling and slandering you!

      But YOU were investigated and 5 million did seem to disappear! That has not been explained.

      Matt was correct again when he stated that these things along with a pattern of movements seem to raise questions. You may not wish to answer them as is your right…and I will certainly not find you GUILTY because of your acquiescence, however people have the right to QUESTION! And we have the right to an opinion. Freedom of speech gives us the right to voice that opinion. And I can see nowhere where you have been defamed.

      Not that I am trying to prove a point Belinda…but I notice that you have a number of directorships in a number of different companies.

      In one particular company, last year’s financial breakdown shows that the total assets had dropped 98.98% from around £800k to £8001.00

      You seem to be all over the internet asking for money Belinda via donating buttons, yet a great deal of money seems to disappear.

      A simple observation.

      Now, I am very busy today…but I should be back tomorrow for more updates.

      Delete
  53. Belinda,

    Thank you for the explaination of who those people are and what the conference was about.

    In tracking all our electronic footprints I sincerely hope you have not been breaking the law by illegally hacking peoples computers. I have noticed that mine have been running very slowly recently.

    I don't want to be ruled over by people who sanction the abuse and torture of children either, which is why I am so shocked about the disgusting way I was treated on Mothers for Justice for two years by men who were pretending to be protectors of children. Your friend John Hemming knows all about that, as do you.

    I hope no more weird and creepy things are going to happen to me or my family ie having people creeping around in cars parking up round my house, having rocks hurled through my mother's window and bins being tipped out all over the street, because I wont be very pleased if that sort of thing happens again you know.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Who is your clever webmaster Ian please? If I am having my computer hacked I would like you to tell me the identity of the hacker please, obviously it will have to be reported to the police, as hacking is a criminal offence.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This really is my last post here. I find you a really scary woman Belinda. I really wish I had never met you, and any of the other creepy people.

    I feel really sorry for Hollie Greig and hope she is safe.

    I'm really angry about the things that have happened, but am not in a position to do anything about it at all. I can see very clearly that if I don't back off and shut up I am going to get hurt, or have my nearest and dearest hurt, so I am backing off. I know only too well what your people are capable of.

    Goodbye.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Shame on you; I sincerely hope that those of you who are posting disinformation on Robert's blog remember something. That is concerning your daughters, granddaughters, because it is them who will give children. You could have done, should have done but didn't do. What does that make you!!!

    ReplyDelete
  57. No one here is hacking into people's computers, Barbara! It's not necessary to do that anyway in order to find who people are because whenever anyone goes on line they add a bit more to their 'electronic profile' which a skilled computer analyst can eventually identify , even if they change their avatar. Don't ask me how that's done because I'm not technical and of course it's not necessary to subject everyone to such scrutiny, just those who are being particularly obnoxious, duplicitous or defamatory about other people. There's been a lot of that going on this week hasn't there? I'm certainly on to those who have been libelling and slandering me for a start, very interesting indeed and it's provided me with great ammo for when we come to court Declan and Lola Heavey of Network of those Abused by Church, who's been harassing and intimidating who, then?!

    EXPLANATION: I'm being taken to court by D & L who are my tenants in my house and are at war with me since I gave them notice to leave last summer. I’ve offered them a substantial sum to help them set up elsewhere, providing they drop the charges against me, that is. I originally took in these strange people in in 2009 because they were living rough on the streets and let them to stay here initially for free while they sorted themselves out (Declan did 2-3 days gardening in return), then gradually they began to pay a bit of rent and now they are on full-blown housing benefit via Haringey Council which apparently gives them extraordinary rights over me, their mere landlady! Despite having signed a Short-hold Tenancy Agreement with a 3 month break clause several times over, and my having told them, this is not a permanent arrangement, I will be needing the flat back at some point, they have dug themselves in here and as said, are taking me to court for bullying and harassing them, poor provision of services or whatever, haven’t even bothered to find out the charges.

    And when in exasperation and not knowing this bit of the law I said if they didn’t leave (having been given plenty of notice) I would have to evict them with the help of my Polish builder, meaning he would help them pack up and put their bags on the street, Declan shot straight off to the police to press criminal charges against me! The police fortunately saw no reason for prosecuting me over one single remark which could be construed as threatening but in the context of everything else did not amount to anything at all – as I told the police, I myself have felt threatened by these people quite frankly, they are so weird and secretive and always look as if they are plotting something which I now see they are! When they first arrived I tried to get to know them and be friendly, as towards everyone else under my roof, I invited them to dinner twice but they refused. I am 66 and they are 50-ish, there are 2 of them to 1 of me and Declan is clearly a very aggressive person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might want to be a little careful about what you say Belinda and certainly get your facts right about how your friend Ian is monitoring people's online activity.

      There is no legal way to track someone internet activity beyond their IP address and asking their permission, and having an IP address is only one piece of a large puzzle. The only other way to track someone's online activity is to break the law or gain a court order to do it. You will need to install malware or some form of key-logger on the 'victims' computer. Anything less than that then the only thing you will likely find out is where their ISP is based and where their connection is routed, when they are online (assuming they use static IP addresses) and possibly some personal information that they themselves have made public on social networking sites etc. Beyond that you could get addresses and phone numbers on sites like 192.com (usually paid services) and details of relatives etc and, you could find out business activities on similar sites but what you are looking at is information you have obtained from public activities and anyone wanting anonymity because they are up to no good will surely know all of this and take precautions to protect their identity. Especially if they are deliberately setting out to derail a campaign and even more so if they have been hired by someone to do it.

      Basically, any legal tracking of people is pointless where rooting out evil people, doing evil things for unscrupulous reasons is concerned. Tracking anyone else is just pointless as they will most likely be wackos or innocent anyway.

      So, what is this 'electronic profile' you talk of? This would indicate that your friend Ian has access to private information stored somewhere about people's internet activity which should be protected under the data protection act. Do you think that it is legal to use this information or share this information or even see this information without a court order or someone's permission?

      As a campaigner yourself, I would imagine you'd be against such activity by the Government without good reason and evidence of wrongdoing BEFORE any tracking took place. Or maybe you'd prefer a 1984 scenario or just have everyone electronically tagged like family pets.

      So, please tell the readers of this site how you are tracking their online activity Belinda?

      ps I'm not working for MI5 or any other Government agency. Just a regular person with a heart and a supporter of all victims of abuse from people in positions of power and influence.

      Delete
  58. continued from the previous)
    So, cutting to the chase, unfortunately my domestic trials and tribulations affect the Hollie campaign and possibly Robert too as we are close co-campaigners, because one of Declan and Lola’s ploys is to defame me all over the internet, which is the stuff people on this and the previous blog-thread have been picking up on and regurgitating. Plus some of it may date back to when David, Annie and I had a brush with a gentleman called Larry O’Hara who’s prominent in the Anarchist movement. “Harry O’Lara” as we called him might have been a government agent but in fact M15 doesn’t even need to recruit such people because they do the job beautifully under their own momentum, as it were. Larry or Harry regards or regarded himself as undisputed ruler of the world of Dissidents & Disestablishmentarians, so when David began blowing the whistle in the mid-‘90s, threatening to topple Larry from his throne he went all out to destroy him and continued to pursue him right through the mid-2000s. By that time he, Annie and I were prominent in the UK 9/11 Truth movement so he then turned his fury onto me as well.

    So all this stuff about me embezzling charity and campaign funds plus all the other bits and pieces probably comes from this ancient source as well as from my new enemies living within my 4 walls.

    Of course none of it will stick when we come to court because there’s a mountain of evidence for my having continuously given away money rather than taking a penny from other people or causes. My accounts going back over the past 2 decades say it all. Plus my having been helpful and hospitable to literally hundreds of people who have visited or stayed here over the years - I’m conveniently right next to a tube-station, Leicester Square 20 mins., which is why people find my house very useful and if they are co-members of the Truth movement they can do that for free if they can’t pay me or if they can pop a few pounds in the pot that’s always welcome.

    So why I ever let myself get into this situation of being a formal landlady I can’t imagine except that when it started in 2010 I was going through a lean patch. But I’ve never had long-term/formal tenants here before and it’s a lesson to me that I was right not to. So anyone else out there who’s got Housing Benefit tenants under your roof be warned, please!
    I’ve only told this personal story in order to set people’s minds at rest re. Robert, Anne and Hollie being mixed up with a type like me, as I’ve been portrayed over the past few days. Hope it’s now clear how and why that has happened and hope we can all now move on.

    PS David was a cross-dresser before he ever set foot in my house.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BELINDA YOU HAVE ACCUSED John of working for some secret it company its pure and utter SHIT!


      I have been to his work ,in his office its NONSENSE as is your accusations against Sarah working for the sherrif ffs!



      I have defended people who have been accused of being Belgium peados and wikileakers even though they have betrayed my friendship and trust.


      This pitchforking has to stop!




      WITH RESPECT TO THIS
      The bulk of the IFT service is undertaken by the close examination and analysis of server, routing and network logs, complimented by other commercially available investigative tools, remaining completely within the margins and framework of UK law. The IFT service uses analysts based in the US.


      SEIG HEIL WOULD SEEM TO FIT THE BILL!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqQT3oKA3v8

      Delete
  59. "So all this stuff about me embezzling charity and campaign funds plus all the other bits and pieces probably comes from this ancient source as well as from my new enemies living within my 4 walls.

    Of course none of it will stick when we come to court because there’s a mountain of evidence for my having continuously given away money rather than taking a penny from other people or causes."

    I do believe you are the first person to use the term "embezzling" in respect of your activities... No-one else has. Besides which; simple embezzlement - which as I'm sure you know Belinda IS a specific crime - is a particularly inefficient and foolish way of filtering money out of a charity...

    Questions have simply been raised and 'patterns' (of behaviour) highlighted.

    'Something somewhere' is causing a little echo in my mind of GLW's classic bluff (which I believe he is still trotting out on a daily basis)that he never lies... And I'm also reminded that the Krays were reputed to keep immaculate books...

    As for Mr Shayler... I'm sure his pre-existing cross dressing skills must have been quite useful when it came to setting that particular 'patsy' up in some of his later adventures...

    Is Robert likely to emerge from jail, guitar in hand with 12 bars on his mind I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  60. OK Headworm I myself am not tracking anyone as I'm not technical and so I don't understand how it's done. Ian has put up an article explaining what can be done within the law on the other site, hopefully by now you've seen that but if there's more you need to know I'm sure he'd be willing to explain.

    Attacks and defamation are a problem in any campaign and it's been open seasons here all week which is why people need to know their avatars do not protect them from being identified.

    Robert always says why do people have to use these funny names and hide behind them to hurl abuse at other people? Why are they so cowardly, why don't they come out and fight openly?! Why indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Shame on you; I sincerely hope that those of you who are posting disinformation on Robert's blog remember something. That is concerning your daughters, granddaughters, because it is them who will give children. What you could have done, should have done, but didn't do. What does that make you!!!

    Put that in your wee pipe n smoke it...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eng65... As you've taken to 'spamming' with this post you can have the reply you got earlier...

      That's a cheap comment - emotional blackmail? Coming from the likes of you? Do you honestly imagine you are a credible person to be pontificating?

      It doesn't wash since it's the conspiracy theorists like YOU who are ENSURING paedophiles and sex offenders have 'get out of jail' cards'... YOU are no better than GLW in that respect.

      Delete
  62. What is it Clyde? Cold hard facts just slapped you in the face? Or, don't you do shame or guilt, too much for you then! Unfortunately, too many live in dream world of "What's it got to do with me" That is; not until they see the carnage abuse leaves behind. Another sad reality of the times we live in despite the suffering of a child, is even more compounded that they have HIV or hepatitis or they can’t have children.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Eng65 - First of all you ASS my name's my name's not 'Clyde' and you damn well know it - It's Matt Quinn, and if you bothered clicking on my profile...

    But then garbage like you can't be bothered with reality; it spoils your entertainment...

    You damnedable snivelling worthless piece of sewage hiding as you are behind a 2-bit nickname... You are NO BETTER nor much different from a Paedophile yourself - for you are a ghoul feeding off the cheap entertainment provided those who trade in conspiracy theory...

    Cold hard FACTS are EXACTLY what cranks like you are avoiding - and the cold hard FACTS is nonsense such as has happened in the Hollie Greig case is exactly what FACILITATES child abuse - SO the cold ard FACT is people like YOU are no better than those that buy and digest the child pornography that fuels this trade...

    Scum of the EARTH!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Errr...so much for keeping it level Matt ;)

    ReplyDelete
  65. Oh I'm keeping it level Pyrite...

    As I say; these people who feed off this sort of material - be they direct users or, like Eng65, conspiracy theorists who pretend to oppose it for their own commercial gain and/or entertainment - they're NO better than child abusers...

    For trash like this to pontificate as to other people's 'standing' with regard to their fitness as paretns etc... Scum; just scum... Just LIKE GLW and his ilk.

    ReplyDelete
  66. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well said Apti voice of reason and Sarah MI5 agaent, ha ha ha

      Delete
    2. "As well as advising 'freedom of speech and freedom of the press' as Mr. Green's defence, was it also Belinda who advised Mr. Green to call for a letter-writing campaign"

      - Can I remind everyone here that Robert framed this in terms that suggested Frances McMenamin was the source of that suggestion of a letter-writing canpaign?

      Obviously that wasn't actually the case. I've repeatedly made the point that in terms of the charge against him there is neither a public interest or justification defence... The nearest we get to that is if you prove life or property were in immediate danger.

      I don't think there is any way Ms McMenamin could possibly have endorsed let alone advised this.

      'Freedon of Speach/Freedom of the press'? Again; complete and utter nonsense in terms of defending the summary charge against him. These are just NOT relevant matters!

      It's actually astonishing that Sheriff Bowen allowed as much to come out in court as DID enter the trial records..

      The David Shayler case is used in media law classes and an illustraton of how defences of this type fall; it's a classic!

      - Many commentators feel that Shayler primarily sought notoriety; and pursued a course that was BOUND to land him in jail with a splash...

      Common thread between Shayler and Green? - There Is more than one!

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I meant to write, "As well as *no doubt* advising..." I have to admit I was expressing my own suspicion that it must have been one of the people who runs the holliedemandsjustice.org site who must have talked Mr. Green into pursuing such a line, based on my own developing impression of the said individuals. I do not know Robert Green or the people at hdj.org and am certainly not privy in any way to either his or their decision-making processes. Sorry once again to everyone if I may have inadvertently caused any confusion.

      Delete
    4. Actually that's a very good point, that:

      "It's actually astonishing that Sheriff Bowen allowed as much to come out in court as DID enter the trial records.."

      Perhaps something worth pondering on...

      Delete
  67. On the other hand I suppose you do need to leave open the possibility that Belinda is basically a good and well-meaning person, but who, for whatever reason, has reacted badly to Mr. Quinn's probings... it's not really nice to damn anyone out of hand to be honest. There's actually been too much in this campaign of people running round saying, 'This person is all bad,' and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  68. And by 'people' I mean Hollie Greig supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Thank you Aptl, for your voice of reason.

    It would appear that Belinda, Ian Parker-Joseph etc have been pushed into a defensive position and have had to strike back - normal human behaviour.

    Agreed Pyrites is an obsessed social misfit, possibly a danger to herself - doubtful to others.

    The rest or the commenters have interesting questions, facts and opinions that they have every right to raise - name calling aside.

    Wouldn't it be wonderful if some kind of order were restored to Robert's blog in the few days running up to his sentencing? A show of respect for the man and what he HAS achieved

    ReplyDelete
  70. a tip for pyshites

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  71. Guys and girls...I do apologise but i am terribly busy at the moment and simply cannot get on her to annunciate.

    But if i were you, i would take a look here.... http://the-can-of-worms.blogspot.com/.....for some excellent scribes from our beloved Matt Quinn! A sample of which goes like this.....

    "Those who are now openly questioning his honesty have strong grounds to do so. For instance, we took issue back in early October 2011 with Green’s plea for letters of support. From his blog entry of September 23rd 2011

    My excellent legal team, led by the eminent Frances McMenamin QC, feel that the success of my defence may be enhanced by having letters produced in Court from those who have supported my actions in bringing the Hollie Greig case into the public domain and believe my stance to be justified in the public interest.

    Quite frankly I do not now and never did believe that Frances McMenamin had anything to do with this request. It’s complete and utter nonsense – unless of course you consider the possibility that she considered his case hopeless and was already working on his ‘plea in mitigation’... In which case it doesn’t seem particularly bright to gather evidence that he may have caused ‘fear and alarm’ over an area that extends well beyond Aberdeenshire! Ms McMenamin of course was forced to ‘walk away’ from Green’s case and duly went from being ‘excellent’ to The Devil incarnate.

    But in recent days comments on Robert Green’s own blog have suggested that it was not Ms McMenamin, but Belinda McKenzie who pressed Robert to gather-in these letters of support. So not only do we have evidence of Green at least giving a ‘spin’ to the facts... How surprised Ms McMenamin must be to learn that ‘Granny McKenzie’ was working under her as part of her team! Particularly as this ‘team player’ was apparently spouting complete and utter rubbish."

    Thank you Matt....for once again speaks sense.

    You see, anyone, AND I MEAN ANYONE, even his own professional legal advisors become Robert Greens WORST ENEMY should they disagreed with the great oh Lord GREEN!!

    (I guess they will be subject to broken windows and bin tipping shortly!)

    I'm in London tomorrow (for those tracking my progress) but i should be back on Wednesday!

    Pip Pip for now!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Sorry...had to dash back and include this from Matt also!....

    "There is now a great big ‘Donate’ button supposedly to raise funds for a private prosecution. Of whom and on what grounds we don’t know. Private prosecutions START at around £250,000 and are very rare for good reasons that I urge the reader to research for themselves. – It’s a ‘charity cause’ that is bound to, designed to fail; something Belinda McKenzie has a track record of association with...

    A 20 minute badly-lit barely-audible video has appeared on YouTube with the Grandmotherly McKenzie droning on for 20 minutes from her Highgate Hub ‘media centre’... While there was a man on Facebook the other night complete with a load of new T-shirts featuring a particularly strange and grotesque ‘Hollie Greig’ logo...

    Roll up roll up roll up... Ker chinggg.... Expect everything from cheaply printed Hollie Mugs to rallies at £45 per ticket to DVDs to God-alone knows what tat"

    You have really hit the nail on the head with this piece Matt!

    ReplyDelete
  73. It has just come to my attention (and i couldn't leave tonight without commenting) (last one....promise) of a comment by the pseudonym "jayzer"

    Let’s understand the meaning of this pseudonym and mine for instance.

    "Pyrite" = The mineral pyrite, or iron pyrite, is an iron sulphide with the formula FeS2. This mineral's metallic lustre and pale-to-normal, brass-yellow hue have earned it the nickname fool's gold because of its resemblance to gold.

    Which is of course what HDJ is...."FOOLS GOLD"

    "jayzer" = A man’s erect cock usually wet and slippery. I watch out my window as little children get off the school bus every day and stroke my rock hard jayzer.

    www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jayzer

    ENOUGH SAID!!

    However, one of us a supporter of HDJ and one is a REAL truther....can you guess?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Well, that is quite subjective Sarah really isn't it?

    I agree generally speaking the better way for many is to be guided to the truth, but some do need a bang on the head i think.

    Anyhow, i am just glad that you are now seeing it. :)

    Which part offends you in particular Sarah and i will censor it for you?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Something else to think about though Sarah....Who out of all the Hollie supporters would pick a name like that?

    I mean, i am only the messenger...and do you think anyone else would have found this out?

    That is the problem with the whole HDJ campaign, nobody has done any REAL investigating, including the SUPPORTERS!!

    Oh and why is John Taylor posting as "Kerry Sutherland Feb 7, 2012 12:20 AM" over on the other thread, and using an avatar of some ugly punk girl? Jeeeeze......

    ReplyDelete
  76. Here is another question I have been pondering for a while.

    Why did Hollies uncle not doing ANYTHING when he walked in on Hollie and her father?

    He did nothing…right up until his death!

    He didn’t try to knock his block off…..he didn’t go to the police….nothing.

    For someone that supposedly loves Hollie as much as is reported, don’t you think that strange?

    I wondered if he was in some way involved? But then surely Hollie would have named him yes?

    But then again I BELIEVE that if Hollie is told something enough times she will see it as TRUTH!

    None of us know the capabilities of Hollie after all…

    But at least he could have said something to Anne; he would have trusted her with the information surely???

    I think Robert Green set out with the best of intentions, after all he was VERY BUSY when he met Anne….but he soon realised how lucrative the conspiracy industry is…..MONEY TALKS….and its colour is GREEN!

    Any tents up at Stonehaven yet?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Another articulate and coherent piece of writing from Matt Quinn

    http://the-can-of-worms.blogspot.com/

    Here is a excerpt....

    The bottom line is that instead of presenting a defence the Quixotic Mr Green simply attempted to use the court as a platform to air various grievances which had little to do with the matters in hand. His attempting to call Angiolini was nothing more than a cheap stunt! Green knew damn well she could never be made to take the stand! And even if she had – what was she going to say that was relevant? Is Robert Green actually stupid enough to imagine he was ever going to be allowed to ‘toy’ with the former Lord Advocate? It’s just too stupid for words!

    Yes Matt....it is stupid....but then what did anyone expect?

    Delusions....many of them...and of grandeur to say the least!

    ReplyDelete
  78. In the words of the sheriff who sentenced Green on Friday:

    “it is sad to see someone of your age indulging in such completely unacceptable activity, with no regard for the rule of law, accusing innocent people of paedophile behaviour and murder! and taking it upon yourself to administer the law. You are a person obsessed with your own importance."

    Always nice to have your own thoughts backed up from intelligent sources....delusions of grandeur? GUILTY!!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Robert been harshly found guilty of BOP doesnt make Hollies story untrue, just like Angolinii and Bowen being on the Lighthouse board does not a conspiricy make

    ReplyDelete