Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Trial on Friday, 17th February

This will be my last blog prior to the impending trial.

Since it is difficult to predict what may occur, I would again like to take this opportunity of thanking all of those wonderful people who have supported Hollie, Anne and me throughout this campaign and to those who have attended my many court hearings. To those of you who may be able to come along on Friday, I shall be most grateful and pleased to see you.

My fate is not in the hands of a jury, but of one man, Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen.

Since the trial, it has been discovered that this individual lacked the professional and personal integrity to divulge his relationship, for over ten years, on the board of an organisation with a fellow member who had been cited as a witness for the defence. This relationship on the board lasted until May last year, when Bowen and the cited witness left within 24 hours of each other. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that the two were at least, fairly well acquainted.

Moreover, on Bowen`s intercession, the witness, Elish Angiolini, was prevented from having to attend court and provide answers on oath under cross-examination, hence displaying the prospect of disadvantaging the defence. Given that justice needs to be seen to be done, it would be difficult to argue against the view that Sheriff Bowen was not competent to adjudicate at the trial, owing to a reasonable supposition that a conflict of interest may well be seen to exist.

A formal complaint has been lodged with the appropriate authorities, which has been formally acknowledged today and Bowen will be challenged in court in connection with his failure to disclose. One would hope that under Scottish Law, the requirement to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in court extends to members of the judiciary.

Bowen`s conduct so far has been instrumental in my having a criminal record inflicted upon me and the prospect of a prison sentence, quite apart from the way my human rights have been persistently breached from the time of my initial arrest.

It may be a good time to note, in comparison, a few examples of how actual sex offenders in Scotland are treated.

This week it was announced that Liam Gibson, described as one of Scotland`s most notorious purveyors of child pornography, was spared a jail sentence despite Lothian & Borders Police discovering 50,000 images of child pornography at his home.

In 2009, Douglas Haggarty QC, a senior member of the Legal Aid Board with the responsibility and influence in deciding if I should be granted legal aid, was found to have committed a sexual act with a 17-year-old male prostitute in the public toilet of British Home Stores, St Enoch Centre, Glasgow on a Saturday afternoon at a time when the store was full of families out shopping. Mr Haggarty was not only spared prison, but was allowed to retain his lucrative job in a position of public trust.

In 2001, when Elish Angiolini was busy covering up over Hollie`s allegations, in an unrelated case, a 22-year-old man who admitted to raping a 10-year-old girl and 7-year-old boy was allowed to walk free. This was reported in The Times and The Telegraph in May of that year. Angiolini was subsequently forced into a public apology for her incompetence. This monumental blunder did not prevent her climbing to the highest office in the justice system.

Then, of course, we can mention the repeated Grampian Police and Crown Office failings over the Hollie Greig case. At the outset, Hollie`s father should have been arrested and had his computer seized, as Dr Frances Kelly`s medical examination, accepted by Grampian Police, supported Hollie`s allegations within three weeks of Hollie first making them in May 2000.

All this may be of some interest when my sentence is announced. In this Kafkaesque country, where right is wrong and wrong is right , the indications are that anyone  who exposes police failures and tries to protect children from being raped is likely to be much more seriously dealt with than the actual perpetrators.

The eminent Ian Hamilton QC described the way that Scotland is currently being governed as being akin to fascism. It is an opinion that is not easy to disagree with.
Scotland is a fine country with some of the most decent and humane people you are likely to find anywhere on Earth. It is so sad that its governance has fallen into the hands of a cabal whose members have characters that are diametrically at odds with the best traditions of those of the overwhelming majority of Scottish people.

Thank you all and God bless you.

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?

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.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Bowen and Angiolini - Ten Years Together

We have received detailed and prompt information from the Northern Lighthouse Board, which is to its great credit.

Sheriff Principal Edward Bowen and Elish Angiolini DBE were together on the board for ten years, leaving it within 24 hours of each other in 2011.

A more blatant conflict of interest on Bowen`s part could scarcely be imagined, yet the sheriff declared nothing about his acquaintance with a key cited witness for the defence.

This is yet another example of the degree of the corruption that lies at the heart of the Scottish justice system. Due to the nature of the charge, a summary offence, any sheriff in Scotland would have been qualified to adjudicate on my case.

Why then was Bowen, of all people, chosen, and who selected him for the task?

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Who Named the Dame of Shame?

Fred Goodwin has, of course, just been stripped of his knighthood.

David Ruffley MP has now suggested that if people regard anyone else as being unworthy of such an honour, they should approach the Forfeiture Committee with their views.

Mr Ruffley, it may be recalled, was the first MP to have the courage to speak out about the appalling way in which the Scottish justice system had dealt with the Hollie Greig case. He is not a Scottish MP, but represents Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk, so his concerns about justice and the protection of Scottish children are all the more commendable.

In my view, the recent honouring of Elish Angiolini was in some ways far more troubling than that of Fred Goodwin and I shall explain why. This has nothing to do with anyone`s opinions on the Hollie Greig case or mine, for that matter.

At the very time that Her Majesty The Queen was bestowing the honour on Elish Angiolini, the latter was persistently refusing to comply with a question relating to her financial probity from the Queen`s own senior appointee, Mr Kevin Dunion, the Freedom of Information Commissioner for Scotland.

How was it possible for such an individual who could be facing serious criminal charges by ignoring a senior official representing the Queen, to be simultaneously made a DBE by Her Majesty?

As many of you will have seen, the official response to the question of who exactly nominated Angiolini for this award has met with the reply that it is not in the public interest for the identity(ies)to be divulged.

I think it is.

Of course, I could not possibly assume what the Queen might think, but it is hard, I propose, to imagine that Her Majesty would have acted as she did had the full facts about the recipient been made known to her. At least, in the case of Fred Goodwin, his subsequently bad conduct was not known at the time that he was nominated and honoured,as far as I am aware.

I intend to contact the Forfeiture Committee accordingly.