Saturday, February 11, 2012

Angiolini and Levy & McRae

Central Police has now confirmed that the investigation related to an alleged misappropriation of public funds involving Elish Angiolini and Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae, has been passed to the CID.

With regard to Angiolini`s ten-year boardroom connection with Sheriff Principal Bowen, it has proved difficult to ascertain exactly who was responsible for allocating my case to him. I have been informed that the application for a sheriff to adjudicate was passed to Sir Stephen Young, Sheriff Principal for Grampian, Highland and Islands.

Sir Stephen is also a commissioner for the Northern Lighthouse Board.

Finally, thank you to everyone who has been kind enough to offer their best wishes and prayers for me next Friday at Stonehaven. I would also like to extend my appreciation to those who may be able to make the journey there to witness and support me.

Of course, what may happen to me is not really of major consequence. What is important is to bring to justice those who committed such appalling crimes against Hollie and other children, which in itself will help to prevent further unspeakable sufferings at the hands of those perpetrators still at large.

Is there a senior political figure in Scotland with sufficient courage and compassion to stand up and demand an inquiry?

27 comments:

  1. "Is there a senior political figure in Scotland with sufficient courage and compassion to stand up and demand an inquiry? "

    If the matter can be kept 'grounded', to the cold hard logical facts and on an adult basis - that is to say away from hob-goblin masonic fairy stories and tacky embroidary - Yes!

    Angiolini made few freinds - not even among light house keepers. There are in reality many who would see her figuartively burned at the stake - Preferably on top of the Bell rock!

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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
  3. 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
    Replies
    1. 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!

      Delete
  4. Your outbursts of satire tell me all i need to know about you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. LOL You should have looked up the meaning of the word "satire"... You obviously don't know what it means.

    But then you don't know much. Ignoramus.

    STILL no cogent counters to any of the FACTS that have been laid out...

    Just emotional blackmail and cheap digs at people's worth as parents. Earlier you implied that I was an unemployed alcoholic...

    All the time you wallow in your own injelitant sewage... As I say; it's the likes of you who facilitate child abuse by keeping it hidden in plain sight anong all the modern-day fairy stories... NO better than a kiddy fiddler yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not intersted with what you write, because i know i am not dealing with a paricularly nice person. I pointed out facts that surround child abuse, and you can deal with it. You throw a paddy because you seek attention and can't deal with rejection.

    You stand on your soap box spuing out your venom aginst the world, wanting to be believed but no one listens, why should they listen Matt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And by the way John - YOU better beleive I'm AM a DEEPLY unpleasant person when it comes to the trash who, like you, provide hidey holes for kiddy fiddlers...

      NOT a threat - a PROMISE...

      Delete
  7. You've pointed out absolutely NOTHING you utterly dishonest, morally bankrupt cur!! All you're interested in is protecting the cheap dirty 'thrill' you get from reading all these lurid stories... And all you've done is trot out 'the party line'...


    Why should they listen to me? Inconvenient as it is I've specifically said NOT to take my word for it... I'm NOT asking people to listen to ME...

    Unlike YOU and your perverted chums, I've simply pointed people in the direction where they can research the TRUTH for THEMSELVES...

    I throw a 'paddy'?? LOL - YOU COWARD! How cheap and shoddy YOU are! Big brave 'man' that lacks the balls to even put his name to the garbage you spout...

    ReplyDelete
  8. There you go again just showing yourself up once more! I pity your Students, fear is your tool of disapline? Or, is it your just a plain bully, moreso when challenge.

    I believe your someone who punches himself in the face when things are not going quite right right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm a bully? LOL Obviously ENg65 you're a close student of Greg Lance-Watkins.

      - You are the one who earlier tried to suggest I was both a benefits cheat and an alcoholic...

      - You are the one who has hinted that I and others are unfit parents...

      - Now you are attempting to attack my work as a lecturer...

      What would the likes of YOU know about being a student?? My charges don't need the 'pity' of cowards! They are adults; already well-educated before they gain access to a course...

      BUT - The fact that elsewhwere you're low enough to try and use someone's kids against them as a tool for emotional blackmail in fact demonstrates EXACTLY who the bully is. And of course you're a 'big brave man' sitting there behind your nickname and your little plastic keyboard...

      Your bleating because you got an angry reaction cuts no ice except with others who, like you, are upset at having their ghoulish little freak show turned upside down...

      And they, like you, are human sewage; no different in essence to GLW or the perverts who raped Hollie Greig.

      YOU have presented NO challenge whatsoever... NO facts... No rebuttals...

      In fact you continue to EVADE and obfuscate the challenges set before you - Despite her bluster the Questions over McKenzie remain completely unanswered...

      Take this for example; From an earlier entry in this very blog...

      "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."

      Ms McMenamin made NO such suggestion; and if anyone wants to counter that I suggest she might ultimately defend her professional reputation. Whether Robert was 'justified' in his actions was never relevant to the matter of him scaring people with his leaflets...

      And it's THAT which was examined at his trial...

      - It emerges in another comment that this nonsense campaign for letters of support came from McKenzie - More 'stock in trade' - Belinda McKenzie - Part of Robert Greens 'legal team' as lead by Frances McMenamin??

      Errr... NO!

      Support Robert in his time of need. There is an old saying; "God helps those who help themselves"...

      Roberts OWN ACTIONS are what will probably see him jailed. The plaind simple TRUTH is he could have defended himself PROPERLY in court - He made the choice not to...

      He could STILL enter a plea in mitigation - Instead w're getting this LUNATIC nonsense about Bowen being in cahoots with Angiolini and how he is going to call a mistrial...

      It's absolute RUBBISH! - BOUND to fail, DESIGNED to fail and at the end of the day it seems Robert Green is TRYING to get himself jailed and thus become a 'bankable asset' on the conspiracy circuit...

      And the plain fact, which ANYONE can research for themselves is McKenzie has 'form' when it comes to orchestrating this sort of thing...

      Delete
  9. Had to post this over two posts - sorry.

    I stumbled upon this blog from another blog when researching something else, and read it with great interest.

    I sympathise with Robert Green and the crusade with which he has gotten himself entangled - I'm speaking from raw hard experience, as someone who has been there, seen it, done it, worn the tee-shirt, and have all the bruises to prove it. So I have a personal message for Robert Green, stripped of all emotion, and I sincerely hope he can see the wisdom in it. I'm going to seperate facts from fiction and theory and strip it all bare. You don't know me Mr Green, and I don't know you - and this is the internet, so I could be anyone at all and this whole post could be yet another tango with the loonies. Ironically, we have a similarly 'colourful' name.

    I have raw experience with Crown Office and Levy and MacRae - even Sheriffs. I battled for almost 20 years with them all. It was a lonely battle. Raw emotion oftentimes gets in the way of common sense. There is an old legal saying that a man who is his own counsel has a fool for a client. There is great wisdom in that saying. It does not mean that every man who is his own counsel is in fact a fool. But it demonstrates the fine line that can often exist between raw legal facts, and often times our own personal and emotional proximity to a disputed situation.

    The law deals solely on raw facts and hard evidence. It needs to. Neither is it perfect, if it were, we would have no need for appeal courts. It is staffed entirely by human beings, just like you and I. Some are good, some not so good, some are completely indifferent - some even make mistakes, just like you and I may also do from time to time. For the most part, they all believe they are doing a service - as in fact they are doing. Cases of the type you have become embroiled in are notoriously difficult to investigate, and by virtue of the nature of how they manifest, proof or evidence is often times hard to find. Often times it comes down to one persons word against another. In legal terms, that can be a very difficult matter to determine, and is fraught with all manner of problems. The law demands doubt beyond reasonable belief for prosecutions. For the religious ilk popping up in the threads, the bible demands the same - 'out of the mouth of two or three witnesses' shall a matter be establised as a fact, and in the absence of that standard of proof, there is nothing much that can be established at all, other than that there is contrary opinions and beliefs in a particular matter.

    Levey & MacRae are a law firm with solid connections and of some notoriety for their skills and expertise in law. I don't know Peter Watson and have never dealt with him. However, when you start attacking a law firm, or indeed any organisation for the perceived flaws or errors of perhaps one or two individuals, you walk a particular pathway. You oftentimes tarnish an institution, whether intending to or not, which will in turn do everything within it's power to defend itself. There will be individuals who become greatly aggrieved at such railing accusations, and who have done no wrong. They will take a moral highground against such matters, and rightly so, for they themselves have done no wrong. One of their company may or may not have wronged you or someone else, but in their eyes and mind, that gives you no right to tar them all with the same brush, even if that is not what you intended to do.

    In legal circles judges, sheriffs, law lords, prosecutors, advocates, and indeed the whole fraternity, many of them may well 'know' some or others, or share some time in the course of a whole manner of different kinds of professional business. Furthermore, they are all members of the same organisation, the Law Society. When dealing with them or considering particular associations, it is necessary to seperate personal relationships from business or professional relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  10. (continued)
    Just because a sheriff may sit on a particular board with another member of the Law Society, does not mean that they know each other at a personal level and enjoy champagne and caviar at regular weekend family get togethers. As members of the legal profession, they will inevitably become acquainted in cases where they are both closely involved at a professional level - but you have to recognise that this is a professional relationship, and it is their job. If every sheriff and every prosecutor had to recuse themself purely on the basis that at one time they sat on the same panel, or board, or were involved in a case at professional level together, then sooner or later the legal and justice machinery would run out of people who had absolutely no ties and had never met each other before.

    To cut even deeper as devil's advocate, the matters in which you feel so strongly about, are not yours to poke around in - whether from a journalist viewpoint or otherwise. There are all manner of established and recognised organisations who deal with these type of concerns, some are even bound to do so by law. However, like everyone else involved, they have to operate at the standards set by the law, and follow any guidelines or official procedures. If they can not, or do not, it does not necessarily mean that there is a huge 'cover-up' or that they are 'protecting' some buddy. It may be for no more reason than that there is insufficient proof, and some decisions may even be made by persons experienced in these matters who know that the matter will be a dead end street.
    From a journalists perspective, you run the risk of breaking the law by trying to take matters into your own hand and eke out your own perceived version of justice by any means possible. I would also suggest you get hold of a copy of Matthew Collins boo entitled "The Law of Defamation and The Internet".

    When I visited the Holly Demands Justice site, I just happened to do a little digging around after reading some of the claims on the site. The front page boasts that the site management has now been taken over by a 'PDPS Internet Hosting' who proudly boast that "this website is now under the professional site management of PDPS Internet Prime". The About Us page on the PDPS states this: "PDPS companies have delivered market-leading online services to the home, home office and SME markets, and we have a successful track record in providing high value, award winning products".
    Now, as it just so happens, my son is a tech geek also. He has an honours degree and a masters degree in IT/Computing stuff, and he is a professional member of the British Computer Society. Enlisting his help, I was able to find out that PDPS only in fact registered their domain name on 1st June 2011! The company is barely 8 months old, yet claiming to be a professional site management company 'with a successful track record'! The other company (deed poll) that they mention, that website was only registered on 12th June 2010. I was also informed that the 'professional hosting company' is not even in fact a hosting company. They merely rent a webserver from another, larger and more established company, Heart Internet Limited. All in all, this 'professional company' appears to have no professional qualifications, no professional association, and appears to be nothing more than yet another of the leeches who have jumped on the Holly bandwagon to milk it for all it is worth - by pumping it's own web company right on the front page of a website that is being frantically spread around the internet by similarly misguided and well intended people, who little realise that they are being pumped by a load of sharks just out for a quick bite.

    In conclusion, my advice to you Mr Green is this, go to Stonehaven Sheriff Court, apologise for your misguided (albeit it well intended) endeavours, and perhaps you may find some understanding and sympathy from the sentencing sheriff.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Watcher:
    Glad you stepped in to suspend the verbal carnage, let's all support Robert in his time of need.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Verbal Carnage? Are you sure you didn't mean child abuse survivors trying to stand up for themselves?

    http://zoompad.blogspot.com/2011/12/michael-heseltine-ian-josephs-ludwig.html?showComment=1329087315218#c8825184964468645873

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am still waiting for Belinda McKenzie to tell me the full name of the person who she claims has been hacking my computer. She said it herself - I just want to know who has committed that crime against me please. It is totally unreasonable to have your computer hacked just because you have posted personal experiences and questions on a blog. Totally unacceptable and against the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She's 'full of it' Barbara...

      People who live in glass houses really should pay more attention to things like this...

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/29/contents

      Delete
    2. how would she possibly know its NONSENSE , best if you give up posting for a month or two and chill out eh?

      Delete
  14. Well, I don't want to post on here any more, I don't want anything at all to do with any of these creepy people, but Ian Josephs came out of the dark shadows and posted on my blog! Why don't they all just leave me alone? They've had their fun, they were laughing their heads off when I was hoing through hell on earth - I saw what they were saying, they were posting on different forums and blogs, having a right good laugh at my expense.

    I'm really sick of those pretentious creeps. I feel really sorry for Hollie Greig, as she seems to be surrounded by some right nasty baggages, pretending to help her.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Two faced doesn't even begin to describe them! They make Janus look like an amateur.

    They laughted while I was crying, mocking me, when they knew damned well I was so ill with the stress that I ended up in hospital with pneumonia, and I really thought I was going to die. I will never forget how wicked and cruel they were to me.

    I am livid about how two faced they are, and how Ian Josephs has the cheek to even breath near my blog page after what they all did just beggers belief.

    ReplyDelete
  16. LEAVE ME ALONE!

    LET ME HEAL!

    LET ME "GET OVER" IT!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hello People, Have just emailed my MP with Rob's letter let as many as possible do the same......

    Dear Mr Bellingham, I am drawing your attention once again to the Hollie G case, for i'm sure this will fester in politics both North and South of the border for a long time.
    Until justice is seen to be done.
    Robert Green who has pursued this case for many years, and presented much evidence into the public domain is about to be railroaded (sentenced) by a Scottish court on Friday.
     
    I offer here a copy of Robert's recent letter, I am sure other MPs will have their attention prompted, what matters is who has the courage to ask the questions, many questions.
     
      Angiolini and Levy & McRae
     
     Central Police has now confirmed that the investigation related to an alleged misappropriation of public funds involving Elish Angiolini and Peter Watson, of Levy & McRae, has been passed to the CID.
     
     With regard to Angiolini`s ten-year boardroom connection with Sheriff Principal Bowen, it has proved difficult to ascertain exactly who was responsible for allocating my case to him. I have been informed that the application for a sheriff to adjudicate was passed to Sir Stephen Young, Sheriff Principal for Grampian, Highland and Islands.
     
     Sir Stephen is also a commissioner for the Northern Lighthouse Board.
     
     Finally, thank you to everyone who has been kind enough to offer their best wishes and prayers for me next Friday at Stonehaven. I would also like to extend my appreciation to those who may be able to make the journey there to witness and support me.
     
     Of course, what may happen to me is not really of major consequence. What is important is to bring to justice those who committed such appalling crimes against Hollie and other children, which in itself will help to prevent further unspeakable sufferings at the hands of those perpetrators still at large.
     
     Is there a senior political figure in Scotland with sufficient courage and compassion to stand up and demand an inquiry?
     Posted by  Robert Green  at 8:58 AM 21 comments
     
    Mr Bellingham I recall you replied previously that because this case was in Scotland, we could not interfere, so am I to believe that the cost of 1/2 million £ pusuing a 'breach of the peace' case is purely a cost against the Scottish legal system ?
    Please make yourself aware of this case.

    Regards, Brenie
     

    ReplyDelete
  18. As Ian Josephs is still coming onto my blog pretending he doesn't know who I am, in the interests of clarity here is a lovely photo of me holding the Magna Carta, as you can see Ian Josephs and Robert Green are clearly there, on the left hand side. IF IAN JOSEPHS CAN'T SEE ME NOW HE NEEDS TO TAKE HIMSELF OFF TO SPECSAVERS!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Robert, I am having the same trouble believing that you are a bad man as I had believing the Orees who were on Mothers For Justice trying to persuade me that the last Prime Minister was a paedophile.

    You don't come accross as a liar or a wicked man at all to me, but I know some very nasty people have encircled round you, pretending to help.

    I don't know what to do except keep on praying.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I would like to stop coming to this site, I don't want anything more to do with any of this. I feel like a right mug, like I walked into that "I saw you coming" shop.

    But Ian Josephs keeps posting on my blog and is completly doing my head in with his lies of pretending he doesn't know who I am and that he's never met me before.

    Perhaps Belinda McKenzie could tell him to quit hassling me?

    ReplyDelete