Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hollie Greig UK media blackout will not hold back the truth

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by justyc
 
Yeah, it's a horrible case and seemingly shrouded in negativity for all concerned. It may well be a folie a deux (who can say?), but it still leaves the motivations of the followers under question.

I'll leave it at that because I rarely post about subjects like this. I was encouraged by your informed posts throughout the thread and think you've made your point whether people accept it or not.




posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


thank you for your words and for taking the time to review what i have posted here.

i was originally loathe to actually respond to the thread after all i have been through and knowing what tactics i knew would be used against me by replying, with what i know from firsthand experience and solid research, but i felt that a balanced and opposing view needed to be told. otherwise people would not question the story for themselves, believe the 'official' version and think that it is the only version there is.

i was just reminded of this classic scene in relation to the evidence i have presented and how it is ignored by the die-hard pro-hollie posters here...

edit on 9-7-2011 by justyc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Any claim that needs a conspiracy between the BBC, NHS and Scottish Law courts to exist is more than likely flaky BS.


I've seen first hand a cover up between Ebay, Police, Trading Standars and IPCC and also how eBay is giving the UK police 'Special trainning'

How about Tony Blair and his WMD lies or all the phone hacking by reporters and everyone making out that they didn't know anything about it.

Was hollie to be pointing the finger at people off the street then this would had been before a judge a long time ago but because it is claimed that people in power were granted access to this little girl by empolyeeds they control then these people are covering up and trying to avoid facing questions in open court.

If these people are inocent then let them clear their names or sue for slander but trying to stop a trail is not the way to go.

edit on 9-7-2011 by Master_007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by justyc
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


thank you for your words and for taking the time to review what i have posted here.

i was originally loathe to actually respond to the thread after all i have been through and knowing what tactics i knew would be used against me by replying, with what i know from firsthand experience and solid research, but i felt that a balanced and opposing view needed to be told. otherwise people would not question the story for themselves, believe the 'official' version and think that it is the only version there is.

i was just reminded of this classic scene in relation to the evidence i have presented and how it is ignored by the die-hard pro-hollie posters here...

edit on 9-7-2011 by justyc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by justyc
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


thank you for your words and for taking the time to review what i have posted here.

i was originally loathe to actually respond to the thread after all i have been through and knowing what tactics i knew would be used against me by replying, with what i know from firsthand experience and solid research, but i felt that a balanced and opposing view needed to be told. otherwise people would not question the story for themselves, believe the 'official' version and think that it is the only version there is.

i was just reminded of this classic scene in relation to the evidence i have presented and how it is ignored by the die-hard pro-hollie posters here...



Nice to see you are as hypocritical as ever Ms Maclaren

edit on 9-7-2011 by justyc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nordle
Nice to see you are as hypocritical as ever Ms Maclaren


nice to see your post is as accurate as the other hollie follower posts.

go and ask stephen milne or george and they will tell you i am most certainly not 'ms maclaren' (another person who changed their mind over the story after reviewing the evidence for those who don't know). in fact if you had even bothered to read the thread you will see that stephen milne even calls me by my real name out of spite.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by justyc
 


Sorry but I placed that in the wrong area.

You indeed are not Ms Maclaren. I was referring to Kandinsky
edit on 9-7-2011 by Nordle because: spelling mistake



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nordle
reply to post by justyc
 


Sorry but I placed that in the wrong area.

You indeed are not Ms Maclaren. I was referring to Kandinsky
edit on 9-7-2011 by Nordle because: spelling mistake


i'm not sure but i'm pretty sure that kandinsky isn't ms maclaran. I knew ms maclaran quite well during my time in the hollie group and would probably have known if she posted regularly on ats (which kandinsky has over the last 3 years - indeed,kandinsky has posted more than I have and I have been a member for 7 years here).

kandinsky can of course clarify this, whether it is believed or not.

would love to know your basis for this claim though



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Nordle
 
I'm not Maclaren and I've no connection whatsoever to the case or participants. In that sense, my comments to justyc are independent and arrived at by looking at the evidence available.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


welcome to my world... this is what i have had to put up with in the past



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by justyc
 
The people involved in pushing the conspiracy sure enjoy managing perceptions of the subject, huh? Random posts and attacks? Trying to take away anonymity whilst hiding behind false names? They can email if they like...it's all over the internet lol.

They haven't helped their cause one bit...



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by justyc
 
The people involved in pushing the conspiracy sure enjoy managing perceptions of the subject, huh? Random posts and attacks? Trying to take away anonymity whilst hiding behind false names? They can email if they like...it's all over the internet lol.

They haven't helped their cause one bit...



this is true, though to stephen milne's credit, he did come here using his real name. george's name is also public record and he made no secret of it (i never used his full name here out of respect for him). george has used more false names and identities for his hollie posts than anyone i have ever met on the internet. he was easy to spot in irc chat though due to his distinctive style of writing and punctuation.

all they know about me is my first name, my age and sex and what country i live in (plus my nationality). presumably these were passed on by george and would have have been brought up in other posts if it had actually bothered me.

ignoring the contrary evidence and attacking the posted is their MO - very predictable behaviour. peeps on ats are used to it. they have only just joined ats for this particular thread though so probably don't realise that it is nothing new here.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by justyc
 
Yeah, just another day on ATS.



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

ATTENTION!!!



This is the topic:

Hollie Greig UK media blackout will not hold back the truth



Please discussion it and not the identity of other members. Discuss the topic and not each other.

Thanks.
edit on Sat Jul 9 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Indeed a very good point, and refreshing not to resort to insults or links to nonsense.

If there is nothing to cover up , why are they covering it up.?




I think this says it all rather than some spurious and very very rare mental case between two Swedish sisters .
As far as I am aware Anne Greig does not live with Robert Green, Robert Green has no history of mental illness ,Anne Greig does but it would APPEAR to have been contrived to silence her.


It seems clear that playing by the rules does not work in Scotland, that may explain Mr Greens tactics.


Forgive me for reproducing ithis verbatim , just in case it goes missing .


www.facebook.com...

Dear Scottish Information Commissioner,



You are no doubt aware by now that I have received a response from the Private Secretary of The First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond; the full and unedited text of which I copy below for you, along with the full and unedited text of my original Freedom of Information request to his Office on 28th January 2011. This is not a response to my FoI but rather a reaction to the threat of legal action from your office against the First Minister.



Firstly, I must point out that, after speaking with members of Hollie Greig’s legal team, I am now cleared to make this public. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that ANYONE and EVERYONE reading this knows and understands that the ‘Justice for Hollie Greig’ campaign and the legal team feel that the English and Scottish Information Commissioner’s Offices have both acted with genuine independence throughout and are to be commended for their objective and fair approach at all times!



Now, I turn to the matter in hand, which I am 100% NOT happy with and request that your office take this matter further.



I am informed in the preamble of the response that, in effect, the reason I was ignored all the way up to and until your office threatened legal proceedings against the office of the First Minister was that they had lost the paperwork so were not in a position to answer (although they word is differently, this is, in effect, what they are saying). Sir, this is not acceptable for such as office holding the rank and stature that it does! EVIDENCE exists that PROVES the First Minister’s office was in full knowledge of the facts about Hollie’s case as well as the illegal actions of his Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini in covering up the case by the use of public funds to secure the services of a private law firm known as Levy & McRae Solicitors.



The response given to me by the First Minister was ‘forced’ as a result of them being threatened by your office with legal action. They state that they did not deal with the FoI as it was addressed by their office in the wrong way. Odd, as my opening sentence to the First Minister is: “You are hereby PUT ON NOTICE that this is a formal Freedom of Information request…” I ask you, does it get any clearer than that? Therefore, I am not satisfied with the response from the First Minister and request that your office follow up on this matter as I believe it to be a lie.



Additionally, the First Minister is in a lawful position to dismiss the Lord Advocate (or at least suspend), when crimes by the Lord Advocate herself, or the Office of the Lord Advocate, are made known to him. This was not done and is, therefore, dereliction of duty, fraud, conspiracy, perverting the course of justice, the crime of knowingly, wilfully and actively supporting and protecting paedophiles and a whole host of other serious crimes no doubt. On this fact alone, I ask that your office now move forward with your investigations (I am aware that, as the First Minister has now responded, the threat of legal action has been removed – for now) and demand that my questions be answered IN FULL as this is most definitely in the public’s interest as it is now possibly a matter of TREASON!!!



I have stated above that ‘evidence’ is available to prove that the First Minister knew about this case, from as far back as 2009. Whilst the lay-legal advisor to Anne & Hollie Greig, Robert Green, may have had his home illegally raided by Grampian Police and loads of paperwork stolen (and never returned to him), I am staggered that someone of the rank and experience as the First Minister, Alex Salmond, would believe that no evidence was available and could get away with such a week response! I am in a position to provide your office with evidence to prove this fact, if you require it. (Note to the corrupt pedo-protectors who are also reading this - the evidence in question is extremely secure, so raiding my place will make no difference).



As always, I must thank the Information Commissioner’s Officer in Scotland for their ongoing objectivity and fairness and I look forward to hearing from you shortly.



Yours sincerely,



Ian McFerran



RESPONSE FROM THE PRIVATE SECRETARY FOR THE FIRST MINISTER, (Received on 8th July 2011)

Our ref: Decision 104/2011 - FOI/11/00508



Dear Mr McFerran



Further to the Scottish Information Commissioner’s Decision 104/2011, I have now completed my review of our failure to respond to your request of 28 January 2011 to the First Minister under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) for the information described in the six questions detailed below.



In accordance with section 21(4) of FOISA, I have also reached a decision on your request.

I would first like to apologise for our failure to respond adequately to your request back in January and in failing to conduct a review of the response as you requested in 10 March 2011. Your original request was initially treated as official correspondence and passed to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) to answer because they are responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. Due to the nature of your request, and the fact that none of the information you sought in terms of FOISA was held by COPFS, your correspondence was treated by COPFS as official correspondence, rather than a request in terms of FOISA.



You did not, therefore, receive a response in terms of FOISA to those parts of your request which related to information which, had it existed, would have been held by Scottish Ministers. You also did not receive a response to your request for a review in terms of FOISA.



Therefore, I do not consider that we met our statutory obligations, because each of your six questions under the terms of FOISA have not been specifically addressed.



I can now provide our response to each of your original questions.



Question 1. “When did you first become aware of the allegations made by Hollie Greig about her being abused by members of a high-ranking paedophile ring in Scotland?”

Response: Following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established we do not have a record of when the First Minister became aware of these allegations. Therefore, the information you require is not held by the Scottish Government.



Question 2. “What actions, if any, did you take after becoming aware of Hollie Greig’s allegations?”

Response: As explained in their response dated 18 March 2011, COPFS is the sole public prosecution body in Scotland, responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the public interest. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are responsible for taking decisions and directing the police in relation to criminal cases. The First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal conduct. Therefore, the information you require is not held by the Scottish Government.



Question 3. “What action does your Office – or you – intend taking regarding the inaction of your Government’s, then Procurator Fiscal and now Lord Advocate, Mrs Elish Angiolini, thereby placing other children at risk of abuse by this alleged paedophile ring?”

Question 4. “What action does your Office – or you – intend taking in respect of Mrs Angiolini proven attempts to cover-up this specific case related to Hollie Greig? You will be aware of the attempts of your Lord Advocate to cover-up this case due to the emails I and many others have been sending to you and copying you into, which contained links to comments, speeches and letters made by Robert Green and his supporters. The information contained in those emails, for the best part of a year, clearly demonstrate the Lord Advocate’s involvement in this most despicable of cover-ups. Please feel free to review my previous emails to you for assistance in answering this point and the previous point.”

Question 5. “Why have you not replied to my persistent email requests for your involvement, as the First Minister for Scotland, to bring a criminal investigation or instigate a public enquiry into the lack of a proper ‘full’ Police investigation in this matter where the witnesses and accused are actually questioned rather than either ignored or left to go about their business, respectively?”

Question 6. “When can the Scottish people expect to see their First Minister act to amend the public perception of non-action by you and your Office, which amounts to a dereliction of duty and bringing the reputation of a public office into disrepute?”

Response to questions 3 to 6: FOISA gives you a right to recorded information which is held by the Scottish Government. The above questions are not requests for recorded information held by the Scottish Government. As explained in the response to question 2, COPFS is the public body with responsibility for investigating allegations of criminality. In these circumstances, questions 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not valid requests for the purposes of FOISA and are not subject to the provisions of that legislation because they relate to matters which are not the responsibility of the Scottish Government and we therefore have no reason to record that information.



If you are unhappy with the outcome of this review you have the right to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner about our decision within 6 months of receiving this letter. You can contact the Commissioner at:



The Scottish Information Commissioner

Kinburn Castle

Doubledykes Road

St Andrews

Fife

KY16 9DS

E-mail: enquiries@itspublicknowledge.info

Telephone: 01334 464610

Should you then wish to appeal against the Commissioner's decision, there is a right of appeal to the Court of Session on a point of law only.



Yours





Terry Kowal



Private Secretary to the First Minister of Scotland

Scottish Government

5th Floor, St Andrew's House

Edinburgh

EH1 3DG



ORIGINAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO THE FIRST MINISTER

Dear First Minister of Scotland, Rt Hon Alex Salmond, MSP MP,



You are hereby PUT ON NOTICE that this is a formal Freedom of Information request, which requires a full, frank, honest and complete response to all the points presented to you, in your official capacity as a serving public servant for the Scottish people.



Given it is now widely known that you are and have been fully aware of the case related to the allegations of paedophilia assaults against HOLLIE GREIG (from the age of 6 years old to 20 years old), allegations which are currently being investigated by ROBERT GREEN and his legal team, I wish to ask you the follow questions related to your role in this matter, in your professional capacity, using my right to do so under the Freedom of Information Act. Please note; I will not hesitate to take the matter further if I do not receive a proper response to this Freedom of Information request.





Further, given that no formal investigation is currently underway, or has been properly conducted by the Police at this time, your answers will not be interfering with any criminal investigation, so please feel free to reply openly and honestly without fear or jeopardising an ongoing Police investigation.
When did you first become aware of the allegations made by Hollie Greig about her being abused by members of a high-ranking paedophile ring in Scotland?
What actions, if any, did you take after becoming aware of Hollie Greig’s allegations?
What action does your Office – or you – intend taking regarding the inaction of your Government’s, then Procurator Fiscal and now Lord Advocate, Mrs Elish Angiolini, thereby placing other children at risk of abuse by this alleged paedophile ring?
What action does your Office – or you – intend taking in respect of Mrs Angiolini proven attempts to cover-up this specific case related to Hollie Greig? You will be aware of the attempts of your Lord Advocate to cover-up this case due to the emails I and many others have been sending to you and copying you into, which contained links to comments, speeches and letters made by Robert Green and his supporters. The information contained in those emails, for the best part of a year, clearly demonstrate the Lord Advocate’s involvement in this most despicable of cover-ups. Please feel free to review my previous emails to you for assistance in answering this point and the previous point.
Why have you not replied to my persistent email requests for your involvement, as the First Minister for Scotland, to bring a criminal investigation or instigate a public enquiry into the lack of a proper ‘full’ Police investigation in this matter where the witnesses and accused are actually questioned rather than either ignored or left to go about their business, respectively?
When can the Scottish people expect to see their First Minister act to amend the public perception of non-action by you and your Office, which amounts to a dereliction of duty and bringing the reputation of a public office into disrepute?

I trust that I can expect your full, frank, honest and complete reply from you within the next 40 consecutive days.



Needless to say, this Freedom of Information request, in email format, has been forwarded very widely indeed, including to Robert Green and his team.



Yours sincerely,



Ian McFerran

Internet links to help remind you of this case:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

holliedemandsjustice-robertgreensblog.blogspot.com...

holliedemandsjustice.org...
edit on 10-7-2011 by MARKDALY because: to add detail



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
We rarely comment but we constantly observe.

We never forget.

We note the silence of the creature which calls itself "Tom George".

We consider it odd that the few people who attempt to rubbish the Hollie Greig campaign were once staunch supporters.

We recall their "support" did not consist of taking action or cultivating supporters but rather of gossiping and bitching in chatrooms which were also used by their husbands to ... but, I digress.

We think it strange that those who post regularly on a conspiracy website believe that the politicians, police, prosecutors and medical authorities have at all times acted correctly in the case of Hollie Greig.

We note the faulty logic they apply, in particular their ability to gloss over matters which clearly point to a cover-up and the irrational significance they place on trivialities such as what Anne Greig did when she left the marital home.

We have observed a long-standing tendency towards mendacity amongst the opponents of Hollie Greig.

We cannot understand why someone would get so upset if a customer changed their mind about purchasing one of their paintings.

We have an extensive vocabulary but do not look down on "chavs".

Our favourite biscuit is the Garibaldi.

Always with love and peace.

Gabriel



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Having read all of the available information, I have to agree with Justyc...I do not believe there is a case to answer. Having been made aware of the case some time ago, I personally felt that the alleged cover up, involving a cast of thousands was really a conspiracy too far, with very little evidence to back up the claims of Anne. The list of alleged paedophiles and supporters apparently keeps growing and growing, to the point that it would seem that half the population of Scotland must be in some way "in on the cover-up"

Whilst I myself am sceptical of the MSM, and have no doubt that TPTB are not entirely honest with the masses, I really cannot believe that this alleged abuse took place, it really makes no sense and like I said previously there seems to be very little in the way of actual evidence of Anne's claims, yet a multitude of information from many sources that disprove the claims...at which point the supporters of Anne's claims then say "Ahh but that's because they're all covering it up" Sorry, no, I really don't think that's the case.

I was finally persuaded to post my thoughts here when I saw the response to a long term ATS poster, who was accused of being someone involved in the case, simply because they agreed with Justyc...that effectively proved to me the level of paranoia amongst Anne's supporters, whereby if you don't fall into line and accept their story 100%, then you're "One Of Them"...



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MARKDALY
Indeed a very good point, and refreshing not to resort to insults or links to nonsense.


finally - this member agrees with me that the links i posted (some of which came directly from the previously available documents from hollies team) show that the case is indeed nonsense



Originally posted by MARKDALY
As far as I am aware Anne Greig does not live with Robert Green, Robert Green has no history of mental illness ,Anne Greig does but it would APPEAR to have been contrived to silence her.


could this member show where i ever stated they lived together or does he think that all folie a deux cases must reside in the same property?


whilst i do not know of robert greens medical history i have clearly proved that anne has shown clear signs over time of mental illness and is also regarded by a top medical professional as being mentally ill. of course this person is in on the conspiracy because it couldn't possibly be true could it?

as for the FOI request information - all this proves is that the team clearly have no idea what the FOI act is used for and what type of information can be obtained through it. just because the questions you have asked them and the information you demanded make sense in your heads doesn't mean that they can provide any real answers to them. they can't give you what doesn't exist or is not within their scope of duty to provide!



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by gabrielskychild
 


i'm not even going to bother to show how inaccurate all of this particular post is.

perhaps you could provide some documentation that is relevant to the topic instead?





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join