Friday, 10 February 2012


I am very concerned about the remarks made by Belinda McKenzie at the end of the comments on this blog posting of Robert Greens. It wounds to me as though some very dubious computer activity has been going on.

I already know that some of the people who were on Mothers for Justice - the Orees - were computer experts. Operation Ore appears to have been sabotaged by these clever people hacking some politicians for the purpose of creating a smokescreen by blaming them of downloading porn.

So, as Belinda McKenzie has pretty much admitted that there has been some naughty business of hacking going on, I am posting the entire thread here, just in case they decide to pull that trick on any of the people who have been posting on that site.


Hollie Demands Justice - Robert Green's Blog
Hollie Greig alleged in 2000 that she was the victim of a paedophile gang in Aberdeen. Her mother Anne was forcibly sectioned within days of the allegations being made. Hollie was awarded £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in spite of the fact that no-one was ever charged with any crime. THIS IS A SINGLE-ISSUE, HUMANITARIAN CAMPAIGN WITH NO CONNECTION TO ANY OTHER CAUSES.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012Angiolini 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.
Posted by Robert Green at 2:54 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook65 comments:
Clydeside TelevisionFeb 8, 2012 07:51 AM
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...
Clydeside TelevisionFeb 8, 2012 08:24 AM
- And now they're back? Hmm

Well; I guess at least that leaves the Jury still out.
johnFeb 8, 2012 01:14 PM
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.
Sarah McLeodFeb 8, 2012 01:49 PM
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.
Clydeside TelevisionFeb 8, 2012 02:13 PM
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.
IanFeb 8, 2012 02:25 PM
I would agree with closing the comments section on this blog as well. Robert's comments/up-dates are all that's needed.
PyriteFeb 8, 2012 02:43 PM
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...

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!
PyriteFeb 8, 2012 02:44 PM
Running the show are we now Ian?
Eng65Feb 8, 2012 02:46 PM
Yes i agree Ian; I don't enjoy getting in to verbal ping pong.
Sarah McLeodFeb 8, 2012 02:52 PM
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!
Clydeside TelevisionFeb 8, 2012 03:19 PM
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.
PyriteFeb 8, 2012 03:56 PM
Indeed Matt.....but perhaps it's all....PART OF THE PLAN!

Oh, and i fear he is going to let you down Matt.
Clydeside TelevisionFeb 8, 2012 04:09 PM
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.
Eng65Feb 8, 2012 06:16 PM
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!
Sarah McLeodFeb 9, 2012 01:31 AM
I see the admin on (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.
Clydeside TelevisionFeb 9, 2012 02:43 AM
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...
ZoompadFeb 9, 2012 03:44 AM
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.
RepliesIanFeb 9, 2012 09:30 AM
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.

Sarah McLeodFeb 9, 2012 04:14 AM
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
RepliesPyriteFeb 9, 2012 09:40 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sarah McLeodFeb 9, 2012 04:17 AM
ZoompadFeb 9, 2012 04:28 AM
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.
belindaFeb 9, 2012 05:02 AM
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.
RepliesPyriteFeb 9, 2012 06:15 AM
For someone who speaks posh, you’re written English is damn poor isn't it? Maybe you’re not "Technical" with language either!

Hey 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. :)
Sarah McLeodFeb 9, 2012 07:46 AM
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?
PyriteFeb 9, 2012 09:42 AM
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!!
AptlFeb 9, 2012 02:57 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ZoompadFeb 9, 2012 05:14 AM
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.
RepliesPyriteFeb 9, 2012 06:21 AM
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…
ZoompadFeb 9, 2012 05:21 AM
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.
PyriteFeb 9, 2012 06:18 AM
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!!!!!
ZoompadFeb 9, 2012 06:30 AM
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!
PyriteFeb 9, 2012 07:00 AM
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… 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!!”
ZoompadFeb 9, 2012 07:17 AM
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!
ZoompadFeb 9, 2012 07:19 AM
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.
PyriteFeb 9, 2012 07:49 AM
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!!
ZoompadFeb 9, 2012 08:56 AM
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.
Sarah McLeodFeb 9, 2012 10:15 AM
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.
RepliesPyriteFeb 9, 2012 12:16 PM
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

ZoompadFeb 9, 2012 10:49 AM
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.
ZoompadFeb 9, 2012 10:54 AM

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.
RepliesPyriteFeb 9, 2012 12:17 PM
Forget it ZP...he is a well and truly hooked!

Take my word for it.
IanFeb 9, 2012 12:35 PM
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.

6 M C KFeb 9, 2012 03:57 PM
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
PyriteFeb 9, 2012 12:55 PM
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!
6 M C KFeb 9, 2012 03:55 PM
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 ?
ZoompadFeb 10, 2012 12:03 AM

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.
Carol SimsFeb 10, 2012 03:43 AM
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.
Eng65Feb 10, 2012 03:49 AM
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.
ZoompadFeb 10, 2012 06:17 AM
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.
ZoompadFeb 10, 2012 08:58 AM
ZoompadFeb 10, 2012 09:08 AM
PyriteFeb 10, 2012 12:07 PM
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!!

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!!!

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


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!
ZoompadFeb 10, 2012 12:51 PM
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.
RepliesPyriteFeb 10, 2012 02:02 PM
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.
PyriteFeb 10, 2012 01:33 PM
A quote from the FAQ's of

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.

PyriteFeb 10, 2012 01:38 PM
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 any RATIONAL thinking individual will agree.
PyriteFeb 10, 2012 01:48 PM
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!!


Money, money,money,money,money,money
PyriteFeb 10, 2012 02:38 PM
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 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 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!
ZoompadFeb 10, 2012 02:55 PM
Oh my stars! I don't know what to say.
Clydeside TelevisionFeb 10, 2012 03:10 PM
Did you not listen to the show Barbara; you'll find it on YouTube...

My own comments of the time are here... - 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...
belindaFeb 10, 2012 03:13 PM
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.
belindaFeb 10, 2012 03:56 PM
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!
ZoompadFeb 10, 2012 04:26 PM

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.
ZoompadFeb 10, 2012 04:33 PM
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.


Zoompad said...

All the comments have now been removed from that blog. I'm not even going to try posting on that blog again. I find Belinda McKenzie and her associates very scary people.

I was only right about two of the people in that photograph, but that is enough for me to know I do not want anything more to do with the Holly Greig roadshow. I just hope Hollie is safe and well.

The Lord will sort out this mess.

Zoompad said...

Hacking peoples computers is a criminal offence.

Zoompad said...

The comments on that site are back up, and someone has left this:

headwormFeb 11, 2012 05:31 AM
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 (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

Zoompad said...

"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."

Now, Belinda McKenzie has said that she has got her friend called "Ian" to track the posters on that blog, including me. If anyone looks at what I have been posting on that blog, there is nothing malicious or nasty, just some information on my own experiences and some questions. So basically Belinda McKenzie has got her friend to either hack me for asking perfectly reasonable questions, or else she has managed to get a court order to get someone from MI5 to hack me.

Either way, it is disgusting. MI5 are supposed to be there to stop anarchy and terrorism, not to be used to stalk and hack people who have simply posted on a blog.

Those people make the hair stand up on the back of my head. I don't think I am by any means a coward, but I don't mind admitting that they terrify me, as they seem to have a special pass to do anything they damned well like!

Anonymous said...

I keep on telling you, it's Ian Evans. He was boasting about it the other night and says your completely crackers and easy to wind up.

Zoompad said...

I'm only posting the comment above to show what sort of creepy vermin I have stalking round my blog spot.

I don't like Ian Evans, but this has got absolutly nothing to do with him, JON!