Robert Green imprisoned for 1 year

[the baron]

Originally Posted by wake_up_bomb

Could you link to them, please. I'm not trailing through a 32-page thread looking for numbers.

Just divide the post number by twenty and round up and it gives you the page number e.g. 485/20 = 24.25 therefore round up to page 25.

[godspeed]

Originally Posted by iq_145

Utter rubbish.

The allegations were listened to and considered by the police and found to be of little or no substance. No one in their right mind would want to go to court on such a charge.

It seems to me now (and I used to be a supporter of Robert's crusade) that we have only been presented with one side of this very biased story/witch-hunt.

You know nothing........

Still living with the English fear....waiting for the witch-hunt yeah

A CULT...........hhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hhhhhhhaaaaaaa

[godspeed]

The Mob - Witch Hunt - YouTube

The Mob - Witch Hunt - YouTube

Here's a wee song to go with the witch-hunt lurker's

[filfar]

Originally Posted by the baron

Following the break up of her marriage in 2000, Anne Greig (or Mackie) made accusations that her husband had raped their Downs Syndrome, daughter, Hollie Greig.

She claimed that this abuse had been going on for 14 years but she had only just become aware of it.

A few months later, Anne went to the police with a longer list of alleged abusers. These included many people who had once been friends of the family plus various professional people who had been involved in her divorce and/or the dispute over her late brother's will.

Hollie was able to provide full names and occupations for all of these alleged abusers. Anyone who has seen film of Hollie will be aware she has communication difficulties.

Hollie then apparently claimed that shortly before her uncle died in a burning car, he had witnessed her being raped. It is claimed that the uncle told the rapist "Don't do you ever do that again" but he did not inform Hollie's mother (his own sister) or the police.

Anne claimed that her brother had no problems which could lead him to take his own life. It was later revealed by a BBC journalist that he was, in fact, suspended from his job for financial irregularities at the time of his death.

The BBC displayed some initial interest in including Hollie's case in a documentary programme but decided against this after judging that Anne lacked credibility. This decision was presented as evidence of an establishment cover-up.

Anne Greig engaged the services of Robert Green to advance the case. Although describing himself as an "investigative journalist" Green was nothing of the sort - he simply accepted everything he was told by Anne at face value. There was no attempt made to contact persons named as either abusers or victims to hear their version of events.

Following Green's arrest for Breach of the Peace the case was taken up by the alternative media. Many of these people have blatantly used the Hollie Greig/Robert Green case to promote their own pet conspiracy theories and the facts of the case have been lost as it is linked to Satanism, Freemasonry, 9/11, child stealing by the state etc.

Anne Greig surrounded herself with a small cabal of people who claimed to be protecting her and Hollie. Any questioning of the campaign or it's tactics was met with claims that those asking the questions were "government agents" or "working for paedophiles".

In recent weeks, some of those who were named as abusers and victims have come forward to deny the allegations and to cast doubt on the mental state of Anne Greig.

STRIPPING AWAY ALL THE EMOTION AND LOOKING AT THE FACTS IN THE COLD LIGHT OF DAY, WE BELIEVE, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY ANNE GREIG ARE FALSE.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE "HOLLIE GREIG CASE" IS EFFECTIVELY A HOAX.

for wake up bomb

[filfar]

Originally Posted by the baron

"They are seeking justice for Hollie Greig"

Uprising - while I am not convinced that is their main motivation, for the purpose of debate I will accept that it is.

If you are seeking "justice for Hollie Greig" presumably you subscribe to the view that Hollie was abused by a paedophile ring. I used to hold this view, because I know that corruption is widespread and did not believe htat anyone would lie about such a thing. Let me repeat the reasons why I , and many others, now believe the case is a hoax.

Hollie was abused for 14 years and her mother was unaware of it for all that time. Simply not credible.

Hollie was able to provide the full names and occupations of her abusers and they all just happened to be people Anne had a grudge against. Simply not credible.

One of the other alleged victims has now come forward to say he was never abused and did not meet Hollie until he was in his twenties.

No-one else has come forward to claim that they were abused by this alleged paedophile ring.

When Robert Green was convicted of Breach of the Peace the Sheriff said of the testominy of the alleged victims/abusers: "Only the most twisted of minds would not accept their evidence"

The only argument I have heard to counteract what I am saying is that there is a huge conspiracy involving police/social workers/ medical profession/ prosecutors/ courts/ media. To my mind, that is simply not credible.

I have changed my mind once and may change it again IF any credible evidence is put forward to support allegations of a paedophile ring. The official site is unable to produce any such evidence.

We have a situation where people are saying that the word of Belinda McKenzie and HDJ must be accepted without question. This is not healthy.

I would urge EVERYONE to look beyond the hype, the emotion and the personalities, to concentrate on the FACTS and to reach their own conclusion.

for wake up bomb

[filfar]

Originally Posted by the baron

Because it is not plausible Anne Greig could have been oblivious to her daughter being abused for 14 years

Because it is not plausible that Hollie was able to provide full names and occupations of all the abusers

Because it is not plausible that the "paedophile ring" just happened to consist solely of people Anne had a grudge against

Because it is not plausible that Roy Greig walked in on his niece being raped and said "Don't do that again"

Because it is not plausible that hundreds of people are complicit in a cover-up

for wake up bomb

[filfar]

Originally Posted by the baron

Complaint 6 - That Detective Sergeant F failed to carry out proper enquiry into allegations of sexual abuse of X.

The complainer asserted in her statement of complaint taken on 23 March 2006 that Detective Sergeant F did not pursue any proper enquiry into the individuals identified by X as having sexually abused her. The complainer stated that she informed Detective Sergeant F of the connections between the individuals X had named but that he did not appear interested.
Superintendent J stated that he had contemporary checks carried out on police systems regarding the individuals named by X and confirmed that at the time of Detective Sergeant F’s check there was nothing present on the systems to support any of the complainer’s suspicions.

Superintendent J concluded in the Subject Report that the force had a consistent and transparent rationale for not pursuing enquiries into the allegations made by X about a range of individuals, which was documented in reports to senior officers and to the Procurator Fiscal, who could have instructed further enquiries to be conducted.

In his final letter to the complainer dated 9 May 2007 Deputy Chief Constable Y stated:

“As I am sure you can appreciate, dealing with such issues is often demanding and requires sometimes difficult judgements to be made on the basis of the information or evidence available combined with the professional judgement of those charged with dealing with the matters.
As you are aware Detective Sergeant [F] interviewed [X] in the presence of an Appropriate Adult. Both Detective Sergeant [F] and the Appropriate Adult had some reservations regarding the manner in which [X] disclosed a lengthy list of people who I understand you believe may have abused [X]. Further questions to help establish whether [X] understood what telling the truth meant did not result in a position where those present were comfortable with accuracy of the general allegations being made. I understand that Detective Sergeant [F] discussed these issues with you at the time.
I can advise that Detective Sergeant [F] carried out background checks on all the individuals concerned to establish if there was any other basis upon which to proceed. However, there was nothing found as a result of these checks which supported the position….Given all the circumstances, background, proximity and opportunity a professional judgement was made to trace and interview [Relative A] in relation to the issues raised by [X]. I can advise you that enquiries were initiated through Interpol and that [Relative A] subsequently attended at [a police office] where he was interviewed under caution. There was insufficient evidence to support any charges.
With regard to the other persons named the allegations were non-specific and with no further information or intelligence available to support the general allegations a judgement was made that there were no immediate grounds upon which a wider investigation could be launched.”

for wake up bomb

[filfar]

Originally Posted by the baron

Above is the complaint made to Grampian Police and their response, below is the judgement of the Police Complaints Commission.

Complaint 6 - That Detective Sergeant F failed to carry out proper enquiry into allegations of sexual abuse of X .

The complainer maintained that Detective Sergeant F failed to pursue proper enquiry into the individuals X had named as her abusers because he did not interview them.

Superintendent J stated that based on previous knowledge, the nature of the responses that X had provided and research on force systems of the individuals named by X, Detective Sergeant F concluded that, with the exception of Relative A, there were no grounds upon which to interview any of the people named. Superintendent J stated that this rationale was reflected in a report submitted by Detective Sergeant F to his superior. Superintendent J noted that following the interview of Relative A the complainer was updated in person by Detective Sergeant F and Detective Constable T.

From the information provided to my office it is evident that although the list of people X named were not interviewed, enquiry was carried out before this decision was reached and statements provided by two officers suggest that the reasons for not facilitating further enquiry were communicated to the complainer.

It is my view, based on the information provided to my office that the enquiry conducted by Superintendent J and the response provided by the Deputy Chief Constable were appropriate and accurate.

for wake up bomb

[filfar]

Originally Posted by the baron

The complainer said that in August 2000 she asked X whether Relative A had also touched her inappropriately and that X revealed that she had been touched inappropriately by Relative A. The complainer states that she asked X if anyone else had touched her inappropriately and that X said yes and disclosed a list of names. The complainer says that she phoned her local police office and informed them of this and an appointment was made for her to attend the police office at the end of August. The complainer states that at this time she contacted a solicitor and informed them of the circumstances. At the police office the complainer met Detective Constable E, and Ms N. The complainer states that Detective Constable E placed her in a room and on leaving the room the officer nodded to Ms N. The complainer comments that she remembers wondering why the officer nodded. She states that she was with Detective Constable E for around 15-20 minutes during which time she provided her with a list of people that X had named as having had sexual contact with her and information regarding how the individuals were connected. The complainer states that Detective Constable E noted this information on a pad of paper but did not say what she would do with the information. The complainer states that following the meeting she returned to X and found her crying, which was unusual. The complainer states that Ms N could not explain why X was crying.

In contrast to the complainer’s account Detective Constable E maintains in her statement that when the complainer arrived for the meeting on Friday 25 August 2000 she objected to the presence of Ms N, a Social Worker acting as an Appropriate Adult for X. The complainer states that she believed that Ms N had been incompetent during the previous enquiry into the sexual abuse of X conducted by Detective Constable H in May 2000. Detective Constable E states that she spoke to the complainer alone in a separate room while Ms N remained with X. Detective Constable E states that following an initial conversation with the complainer, the complainer informed her that she would not continue if Ms N was involved, and accordingly a new appointment was arranged for a joint interview to be conducted with X and an alternative Appropriate Adult. Detective Constable E states that she informed Ms N of the situation, who then left the building on her instruction. She states that X was placed in a room alone with a TV throughout the duration of the complainer’s interview which lasted for around two hours. Detective Constable E states that the complainer left the building with X on the understanding that they would return the following Monday to allow X to be interviewed.

The complainer states that, on leaving the police office, she noticed that X’s pupils were dilated and so she asked X if Ms N had done anything to her. The complainer stated that X informed her that the Social Worker had put a needle in her leg. The complainer and X returned to the police office, reported what X had said to Detective Constable E and asked to see a police doctor. The complainer stated that she waited in the police office for two hours before Detective Constable E returned and informed her that a police doctor could not be found. The complainer stated that Detective Constable E advised her to see her GP. She asserted that her GP would not take a blood sample but did take a urine sample which came back as negative. The complainer stated that she had no further contact with Detective Constable E.

In contrast to the complainer’s account, Detective Constable E maintained that when the complainer and X returned to the police office she put the complainer and X in a room whilst she spoke to her superior, Detective Inspector R. Detective Constable E stated that she spoke with the complainer in the presence of Detective Inspector R and agreed that, as it was too late in the day to arrange a Social Worker to conduct an interview, the complainer and X would attend the following day for X to be interviewed and medically examined. Detective Constable E stated that the complainer attended the following day, 26 August 2000. Dr P stated that she examined X with a magnifying glass and could find no evidence of X being injected. Detective Constable E states that the complainer instructed the doctor to take a blood sample from X and that the complainer became angry at the doctor’s refusal to take blood from X, as she had become distressed. She maintained that the complainer then refused to allow X to be interviewed and left the police office, stating that the force was not carrying out an effective investigation. Detective Constable E stated that she managed to arrange an alternative appointment for the complainer the following Monday, 28 August 2000, but that the complainer did not attend this appointment. On 28 August 2000, concerned about the welfare of X, Detective Constable E and Detective Sergeant G (later Mr) visited the complainer’s home, but she refused to answer the door.

Detective Constable E stated that she had concern for the well-being of the complainer and for the safety of X as a result of contact with the complainer. Detective Constable E states that having discussed her concerns with a Senior Social Worker she contacted the complainer’s GP and former GP. She further stated that she was later advised by a Social Worker and the complainer’s GP that the complainer had failed to keep any appointments and, as a result, consideration was being given to visiting the complainer at home with the intention of detaining her under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (Mental Health Act).

for wake up bomb

[filfar]

Originally Posted by the baron

As a footnote to his enquiries Superintendent J noted that he was aware that the complainer had provided an association chart to the force detailing her perceived connections between the individuals X named as her abusers. He stated that in this chart reference was made to Detective Sergeant F having contact with Person U in the context of a local pantomime and living in the same area as her. Superintendent J noted that a short statement was taken from Person U who advised that she had never met Detective Sergeant F prior to, or subsequent to, him noting a statement from her in the course of his enquiries. She also stated that whilst she had never performed in pantomime with him, she was in pantomime with an ex-police officer. Superintendent J stated that this officer has not featured in any of the complainer’s concerns. He also noted that Detective Sergeant F did not live in the same area as Person U.

for wake up bomb

[iq_145]

Originally Posted by dolores1

... What crime did Robert commit?

He committed two: breach of the peace, for which he was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment; and breach of bail conditions, for which he was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.

His sentence for breach of the peace was not the maximum possible for a sheriff court to dish out (12 months), as some people have mistakenly claimed.

[uprising]

On HDJ today
http://holliedemandsjustice.org/cont...se-of-rippers/
The use of Rippers
Posted on May 3, 2012 by Admin
Yesterday, 2nd May 2012, there were 3 separate visits from the Police National Network to this site.

Whilst we have seen the Police visit this site on a regular basis (presumably to see what is going on, or what is being published here), yesterday they decided to take a copy of the entire site using Rippers software.



Our security systems automatically put a ban in place for any visitor using the Rippers software (it does not discriminate), and consequently the Police National Network on this particular IP address is now banned.

Whilst this site is keen to cooperate with the Police on any genuine enquiry, it cannot condone the use of Rippers as an enquiry tool.

We will of course grant the Police access to this site again if they write to us, but we will want to be informed of the following before such access is granted.

1. What is your interest in the HDJ site.
2. Is there an ongoing investigation that warrants you visit the site.
3. If so what is the investigation name/reference number.
4. Who is in charge of the investigation.
5. What are the terms of the investigation.
6. Who authorised the use of Rippers.

It is the policy of the HDJ site to block ANYONE who uses Rippers.
The use of Rippers

[uprising]

Originally Posted by labouysse

Why should people have their property searched, computers inspected and DNA taken if there is no evidence that they've committed a crime?

It was up to the police to look for the evidence.
Do you have to solve your own crimes in Scotland before the police will act?

[filfar]

again rudeness from 'uprising'

the police did investigate

it would seem they are investigating HDJ too ...

[uprising]

Originally Posted by filfar

again rudeness from 'uprising'

the police did investigate

it would seem they are investigating HDJ too ...

Yes they seem to go to great effort when defending the alleged paedophiles.
Much more effort than they put into investigating Hollie's claims of abuse.

Perhaps if they'd raided their homes and checked their computers as they did Robert Green's and Anne & Hollies they might have found this elusive evidence.

[filfar]

The truth of the matter is uprising that you don't know what efforts the police have gone to or not, you believe Robert and Belinda, but you were not at court, you do not have much of a handle on police procedure, you have not heard any testimony from those people who were accused or the police that did investigate - an that is police that investigated the accused AND police that investigated Robert AND the police that are keeping an eye on things just now.

It is not as simple as you would like to believe, and until you find out more I would suggest, politely, that you wind your neck in

[filfar]

Tell you what uprising, why don't you ask Brian Gerrish, David Icke, Bill Maloney, Roger Hayes and Lou Collins what their latest take on the HG case is?

They've had plenty to say in previous months - strangely now they have all gone silent

[uprising]

Originally Posted by filfar

The truth of the matter is uprising that you don't know what efforts the police have gone to or not, you believe Robert and Belinda, but you were not at court, you do not have much of a handle on police procedure, you have not heard any testimony from those people who were accused or the police that did investigate - an that is police that investigated the accused AND police that investigated Robert AND the police that are keeping an eye on things just now.

It is not as simple as you would like to believe, and until you find out more I would suggest, politely, that you wind your neck in

Correct, I don't know what efforts they made but seemingly did very little.
Your argument is fine and might sway someone that has an ounce of trust in the authorities but I don't.

If you think doing background checks was enough in such a controversial and serious case then fine, I'm not trying to change your mind.

You might be right, but I don't think you are.
I'd actually love to be wrong and it turn out its all an elaborate hoax, but until there's a full proper and open public enquiry into ALL issues.

[filfar]

This is the inquiry uprising, right here, now, you and me (and others) on the DI forum and elsewhere.

>>Correct, I don't know what efforts they made but seemingly did very little.<<

are you Simon Elder? this is a lot like his style - long winded, boring and endless.

If you want to discuss facts great, but I am not interested in discussing the meanderings of what you THINK is going on

This is no longer an 'opinion' piece it is too late for that and too much time has been wasted listening to people who could talk, I'm interested in what really happened and if you can add to that - good, if not then I won't bother trying to answer your questions, put up with your rudeness or even try to understand where you are coming from.

1000+ ppl read this thread yesterday, do you wish to appear a numpty in front of all those ppl?

[dolores1]

Originally Posted by iq_145

He committed two: breach of the peace, for which he was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment; and breach of bail conditions, for which he was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.

His sentence for breach of the peace was not the maximum possible for a sheriff court to dish out (12 months), as some people have mistakenly claimed.

Seeking justice is a crime?


Seeking the truth is a criome?