CHIEF CONSTABLE STEPHEN HOUSE - WHAT CONSTITUTES A "THOROUGH INVESTIGATION" INTO RAPE ALLEGATIONS?
In April, Chief Constable Stephen House became the head of Scotland`s newly unified police force. With Scotland having the lowest conviction rate for rape in Europe and my experience of the police`s handling of the Hollie Greig case, I thought it both reasonable and in the public interest to ask him what police actions into rape allegations would constitute the minimum level in order to satisfy him that a thorough investigation had taken place.
Every single police officer that I have spoken to on this issue, both informally or formally, as in the Operation Yewtree investigation, has stated that at the very least, identified alleged attackers must be questioned. No such action has taken place following Hollie Greig`s complaint to DC Lisa Jane Evans on 8th September 2009, at which I was present. This most fundamental lack of investigation was confirmed on oath by DC Evans at my trial. Furthermore, fourteen of those identified by Hollie were also cross-examined in court and all confirmed that the police had never even questioned them about Hollie`s claims.
It should be repeated again that Hollie has been described by professionals as a competent and truthful witness with her allegations being supported by a plethora of expert witness evidence, including police officers themselves and the police`s own forensic medical advisor, plus a financial award to Hollie by the state based on the acceptance that the crime of rape had indeed taken place.
To date, Chief Constable House has felt either unwilling or incapable of responding to this perfectly straightforward question. Could it be that if he were to provide an answer consistent with that of his fellow officers, it might severely embarrass his boss, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who has regurgitated the nonsensical mantra that "a thorough investigation into the Hollie Greig case has taken place" when it must be clear to everyone that nothing of the kind has ever transpired?
Astonishing though it may seem, the Justice Secretary once actually stated publicly that "rape is a horrific crime and we must all do our best to prevent it" - really, Mr MacAskill?
Chief Constable House`s attitude towards rape allegations must thus be of importance to every woman, child or disabled person in Scotland - why won`t he address the issue?
He can be contacted on 01786 289070 or cc.office@scotland.pnn.police.uk
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Thursday, 16 May 2013
ANGIOLINI `S FORMER DEPUTY ADMITS TO DOWNLOADING 15,000 CHILD PORN IMAGES
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2013/shame-for-crown-office-lord-advocate-as.html
If you have difficulty accessing this, it is reported in the Scottish Law Reporter, the Scottish Daily Mail and the BBC. The current Scottish regime is notoriously hostile to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, especially with regard to issues related to paedophile crime.
Stuart MacFarlane, who formerly served as Procurator Fiscal Depute under Elish Angiolini, when she was Lord Advocate, has confessed to possessing 15,000 pornographic images of girls between 3 and 14 as well as ones including sadism and sex with animals.
Additionally, it is understood that several other members at Angiolini`s former office have been suspended on the grounds of suspicion that they shared the images with MacFarlane.
MacFarlane was initially arrested for a past sex offence in 2005, but the Crown Office decided it was "not in the public interest" to prosecute him. It has now turned out that he has been, in fact, a serial paedophile criminal all along.
The initial offence was being caught in a sexual act with a female prostitute in Glasgow. Two police officers, Sgt Stewart and PC McCormack gave chase to MacFarlane, who ran away with his trousers around his ankles and both officers were injured as MacFarlane attempted to evade arrest. One might reasonably have expected a custodial sentence, but this was not to be, thanks to the intervention of Angiolini`s office, "in the public interest", naturally.
MacFarlane was assisted further by the services of the late Paul McBride QC.
Readers of this blog may recall that it was Mr McBride who helped sex offender Douglas Haggarty, current Technical Head of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, to avoid prison after he was arrested for committing a sexual act with a boy in the gents` toilets in a Glasgow city centre store.
Such is the calibre of some of the individuals in positions of responsibility within the Scottish justice system. You could hardly make it up.
Paul McBride was somewhat mysteriously found dead in a hotel room in Pakistan last year, aged just 48.
It is now almost a year since I was released from jail. I still remember with appreciation the support I received from the officers and governors there and especially, the tremendous backing that was given to me by my fellow prisoners throughout the incarceration. It is also impossible for me to forget all the kindnesses and messages I received from so many people around the world, shocked by the Scottish authorities` contemptuous and hostile attitude towards disabled rape victim Hollie Greig and those who had the decency and courage to stand up for her.
I must also thank those wonderful people who publicly called for my release in various cities and the valiant Scots who walked the streets of Aberdeen and demonstrated on a number of occasions outside the prison. These are the true Scots, a credit to their fine country.
Scotland really is a wonderful nation, containing some of the most decent, brave and talented people you could find anywhere, but every country does have its unsavoury element and it seems that this small and unworthy minority has somehow reached the upper echelons of the Scottish system. Returning to my earlier comments, I have no hesitation in stating my view that in general, the Scots locked up with me in prison were of superior character than many of those who actually run the country.
Since I left prison, of course, the Jimmy Savile and Hillsborough scandals have unravelled and people throughout Britain must be aware of the desperate and cynical measures adopted by the authorities to cover up criminal activity when it suits them to do so, including persecution of the victims themselves. Scotland is not alone in being riddled with corruption at a very high level.
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2013/shame-for-crown-office-lord-advocate-as.html
If you have difficulty accessing this, it is reported in the Scottish Law Reporter, the Scottish Daily Mail and the BBC. The current Scottish regime is notoriously hostile to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, especially with regard to issues related to paedophile crime.
Stuart MacFarlane, who formerly served as Procurator Fiscal Depute under Elish Angiolini, when she was Lord Advocate, has confessed to possessing 15,000 pornographic images of girls between 3 and 14 as well as ones including sadism and sex with animals.
Additionally, it is understood that several other members at Angiolini`s former office have been suspended on the grounds of suspicion that they shared the images with MacFarlane.
MacFarlane was initially arrested for a past sex offence in 2005, but the Crown Office decided it was "not in the public interest" to prosecute him. It has now turned out that he has been, in fact, a serial paedophile criminal all along.
The initial offence was being caught in a sexual act with a female prostitute in Glasgow. Two police officers, Sgt Stewart and PC McCormack gave chase to MacFarlane, who ran away with his trousers around his ankles and both officers were injured as MacFarlane attempted to evade arrest. One might reasonably have expected a custodial sentence, but this was not to be, thanks to the intervention of Angiolini`s office, "in the public interest", naturally.
MacFarlane was assisted further by the services of the late Paul McBride QC.
Readers of this blog may recall that it was Mr McBride who helped sex offender Douglas Haggarty, current Technical Head of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, to avoid prison after he was arrested for committing a sexual act with a boy in the gents` toilets in a Glasgow city centre store.
Such is the calibre of some of the individuals in positions of responsibility within the Scottish justice system. You could hardly make it up.
Paul McBride was somewhat mysteriously found dead in a hotel room in Pakistan last year, aged just 48.
It is now almost a year since I was released from jail. I still remember with appreciation the support I received from the officers and governors there and especially, the tremendous backing that was given to me by my fellow prisoners throughout the incarceration. It is also impossible for me to forget all the kindnesses and messages I received from so many people around the world, shocked by the Scottish authorities` contemptuous and hostile attitude towards disabled rape victim Hollie Greig and those who had the decency and courage to stand up for her.
I must also thank those wonderful people who publicly called for my release in various cities and the valiant Scots who walked the streets of Aberdeen and demonstrated on a number of occasions outside the prison. These are the true Scots, a credit to their fine country.
Scotland really is a wonderful nation, containing some of the most decent, brave and talented people you could find anywhere, but every country does have its unsavoury element and it seems that this small and unworthy minority has somehow reached the upper echelons of the Scottish system. Returning to my earlier comments, I have no hesitation in stating my view that in general, the Scots locked up with me in prison were of superior character than many of those who actually run the country.
Since I left prison, of course, the Jimmy Savile and Hillsborough scandals have unravelled and people throughout Britain must be aware of the desperate and cynical measures adopted by the authorities to cover up criminal activity when it suits them to do so, including persecution of the victims themselves. Scotland is not alone in being riddled with corruption at a very high level.
Friday, 10 May 2013
ANGIOLINI - CAN SHE BE DEFAMED?
This is a fundamental question with regard to Elish Angiolini`s defamation action against me. The view may be held that her record in public office renders her to be one of those rare individuals who cannot actually be defamed. Because I do not wish to appear partial, I shall list only evidence that has no connection with Angiolini`s conduct in relation to the Hollie Greig case.
In May 2001, whilst Elish Angiolini was Procurator Fiscal in Aberdeen, a 22-year-old man who confessed to raping a 10-year-old girl walked free due to a blunder on Angiolini`s part that she was later obliged to admit. She claimed that this monumental error had occurred due to her office being short-staffed. Oddly, such a debacle in allowing a man known to be dangerous to children to be let loose did nothing to impede Angiolini`s meteoric career rise. In short order, she became Scotland`s Solicitor-General!
This case was reported on by Tara Womersley of the Telegraph, among others.
After Angiolini was promoted yet again to the highest office in the Scottish justice system, that of Lord Advocate, she faced further criticism from some of Scotland`s most respected legal professionals.
Ian Hamilton QC, Scotland`s legal elder statesman, commented that "Elish Angiolini was a bad Lord Advocate who should have been sacked by Alex Salmond when he took office in 2007". Mr Hamilton went on to criticise Angiolini`s highly controversial admission to be an advocate at Terra Firma soon after her resignation as Lord Advocate, in these words, "This lady has been publicly censured by the Lord Justice General. No one who has been so censured has ever passed advocate in the last three hundred years".
The Lord Justice General`s public reprimand came as a result of Angiolini`s intervention in the World`s End case (see HeraldScotland 27 September 2007).
Next, Lord Hope, a Scottish representative at the Supreme Court, severely rebuked Angiolini and others over the Peter Cadder case. Angiolini thought that people arrested and charged by the police should not be allowed professional legal representation. The Supreme Court ruled that Angiolini and others were in fact acting in breach of Scotland`s solemn commitment to the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. I too suffered from this breach when I was arrested and charged, but the Hollie Greig issue had nothing to do with this. I was by no means alone. An estimated 76,000 people in Scotland were also denied their lawful rights over this matter.
Professor Robert Black QC then described Angiolini`s tenure as Lord Advocate as "a disastrous experiment that should never be repeated". Professor Black is involved, along with many other eminent people around the world, in the examination of issues related to the Lockerbie case, about which Elish Angiolini, in 2009, has already made false public statements over reasons for the release of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.
One might well think it reasonable to conclude that such powerful public criticisms of Angiolini by prominent legal figures in Scotland would have damaged her reputation far more than any words than I could possibly ever utter, but curiously, she has taken no similar action of defamation against any of these widely-respected legal luminaries.
Finally, since my court appearance in Edinburgh, I have again raised the issue of the private and confidential emails that have been used in evidence against me in this civil case. We now know from Angiolini`s Counsel, Mr Roddy Dunlop, that these documents were acquired from Grampian Police in connection with the criminal case against me. Furthermore, Mr Dunlop entered the court unaware that his client had refused my offer to speak openly at my trial when I had her cited as a witness to face cross-examination, in an effort to discover the truth over her involvement in the Hollie Greig case.
So far, her solicitor, Mr Alfred Tyler, of Balfour & Manson, has not disclosed as to how Mr Dunlop came to be so ill-informed, nor has he yet complied with my request for complete provenance to be provided to me in regard to the identified emails that I have referred to.
This is a fundamental question with regard to Elish Angiolini`s defamation action against me. The view may be held that her record in public office renders her to be one of those rare individuals who cannot actually be defamed. Because I do not wish to appear partial, I shall list only evidence that has no connection with Angiolini`s conduct in relation to the Hollie Greig case.
In May 2001, whilst Elish Angiolini was Procurator Fiscal in Aberdeen, a 22-year-old man who confessed to raping a 10-year-old girl walked free due to a blunder on Angiolini`s part that she was later obliged to admit. She claimed that this monumental error had occurred due to her office being short-staffed. Oddly, such a debacle in allowing a man known to be dangerous to children to be let loose did nothing to impede Angiolini`s meteoric career rise. In short order, she became Scotland`s Solicitor-General!
This case was reported on by Tara Womersley of the Telegraph, among others.
After Angiolini was promoted yet again to the highest office in the Scottish justice system, that of Lord Advocate, she faced further criticism from some of Scotland`s most respected legal professionals.
Ian Hamilton QC, Scotland`s legal elder statesman, commented that "Elish Angiolini was a bad Lord Advocate who should have been sacked by Alex Salmond when he took office in 2007". Mr Hamilton went on to criticise Angiolini`s highly controversial admission to be an advocate at Terra Firma soon after her resignation as Lord Advocate, in these words, "This lady has been publicly censured by the Lord Justice General. No one who has been so censured has ever passed advocate in the last three hundred years".
The Lord Justice General`s public reprimand came as a result of Angiolini`s intervention in the World`s End case (see HeraldScotland 27 September 2007).
Next, Lord Hope, a Scottish representative at the Supreme Court, severely rebuked Angiolini and others over the Peter Cadder case. Angiolini thought that people arrested and charged by the police should not be allowed professional legal representation. The Supreme Court ruled that Angiolini and others were in fact acting in breach of Scotland`s solemn commitment to the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. I too suffered from this breach when I was arrested and charged, but the Hollie Greig issue had nothing to do with this. I was by no means alone. An estimated 76,000 people in Scotland were also denied their lawful rights over this matter.
Professor Robert Black QC then described Angiolini`s tenure as Lord Advocate as "a disastrous experiment that should never be repeated". Professor Black is involved, along with many other eminent people around the world, in the examination of issues related to the Lockerbie case, about which Elish Angiolini, in 2009, has already made false public statements over reasons for the release of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.
One might well think it reasonable to conclude that such powerful public criticisms of Angiolini by prominent legal figures in Scotland would have damaged her reputation far more than any words than I could possibly ever utter, but curiously, she has taken no similar action of defamation against any of these widely-respected legal luminaries.
Finally, since my court appearance in Edinburgh, I have again raised the issue of the private and confidential emails that have been used in evidence against me in this civil case. We now know from Angiolini`s Counsel, Mr Roddy Dunlop, that these documents were acquired from Grampian Police in connection with the criminal case against me. Furthermore, Mr Dunlop entered the court unaware that his client had refused my offer to speak openly at my trial when I had her cited as a witness to face cross-examination, in an effort to discover the truth over her involvement in the Hollie Greig case.
So far, her solicitor, Mr Alfred Tyler, of Balfour & Manson, has not disclosed as to how Mr Dunlop came to be so ill-informed, nor has he yet complied with my request for complete provenance to be provided to me in regard to the identified emails that I have referred to.
Friday, 3 May 2013
ANGIOLINI - REPORT FROM EDINBURGH
Having been forced, at short notice, to represent myself in Court on Wednesday 1st May, it did provide me with the opportunity to bring some serious issues into open court. It must be said at the outset that I was treated with utmost fairness and consideration by the judge, Lord Stewart, qualities that are not always evident within certain members of the Scottish judiciary. It is also the case that Balfour & Manson`s Advocate, Mr Dunlop, behaved in a courteous and correct manner towards me.
On equitable grounds, Lord Stewart accepted the need for me to be provided with a level of professional expertise adequate for my defence, especially as I am currently acting alone in a foreign land whose laws I do not know, nor have I any legal obligation to possess such knowledge.
I asked Lord Stewart to direct the pursuer`s Counsel to disclose how certain items within the pursuer`s bundle presented to the defence had been obtained, i.e. private and confidential emails. Mr Dunlop said that these had been obtained from police records in connection with the public criminal case against me. I do not recall seeing these documents until they were recently presented to me, but that does not necessarily invalidate what Mr Dunlop had to say in regard to this private civil case. He did not go on to explain, however, precisely how or when they had been obtained, from whom and by who`s authority they had been provided to Elish Angiolini or her representatives.
I went on to disclose a letter, dated 16th April 2013, sent by me to the current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, asking him to provide to the Court of Session an assurance that public funds had not been accessed by the pursuer for the purpose of this private case, that could result in her personal financial gain. This query was stimulated by press reports that a secret "slush fund" of public money had been created for the use of senior Crown Office officials, past and present, in order for them to utilise in private legal actions for potential personal financial gain. The Crown Office has not yet clarified its position over these allegations, to my knowledge.
In this specific case, the Lord Advocate has failed to provide the requested assurance to the Court.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has been notified accordingly.
Returning to the matter of professional representation, for which I would require Legal Aid, I mentioned that the prospect of my receiving such aid could reasonably be said to be diminished by the fact that the Technical Head of the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), Douglas Haggarty, is himself a recent sex offender. This led me to suggest that a possible conflict of interest may exist within SLAB, as Mr Haggarty is likely to be more sympathetic to fellow sex offenders than to someone like me, who seeks to expose such criminal activities.
Lord Stewart was unaware of this particular case, which was widely publicised in Scotland, so I explained that in 2009, Mr Haggarty had been apprehended and charged after being found indulging in a sex act with a boy in the gents` toilets at British Home Stores, St Enoch Square, Glasgow on a busy Saturday afternoon, when families were in the vicinity.
After the hearing, I was astounded to learn that Angiolini`s Counsel had come to Court in order to represent her in complete ignorance that she had been cited by my Counsel at my trial to appear for cross-examination under oath and that she had subsequently refused to face the Court. Regardless of the merits of my allegations, I had always held that it was thus entirely unreasonable of Angiolini to take out a defamation action against me when I had previously provided her with the perfect opportunity to answer such allegations in open court. Had it been established by her evidence then that I had been inaccurate or mistaken in any regard, I would have offered a retraction and suitable public apology. In declining my offer, Elish Angiolini had denied me the opportunity of doing so, if appropriate. Mr Fred Tyler, senior partner of Balfour & Manson, has so far refused to offer an explanation as to how Counsel could have come to represent Angiolini and yet be unaware of crucial true facts.
Lord Stewart has suggested that it would be helpful for the two sides to come to an agreement and I stated that I have no objection in trying to cooperate in this regard. Mr Dunlop has made it clear that Elish Angiolini has no wish to carry on pursuing the case if such an agreement can be arrived at. I shall formulate my terms for her consideration shortly, but justice will need to be pursued and seen to be pursued in the case of Hollie Greig. Surely, Elish Angiolini would agree with me that the interests of a disabled Scottish rape victim should take precedence over those relevant to her reputation or indeed, to my freedom.
Irrespective of whether an acceptable agreement can be negotiated or not, no further hearing will take place until the autumn.
Having been forced, at short notice, to represent myself in Court on Wednesday 1st May, it did provide me with the opportunity to bring some serious issues into open court. It must be said at the outset that I was treated with utmost fairness and consideration by the judge, Lord Stewart, qualities that are not always evident within certain members of the Scottish judiciary. It is also the case that Balfour & Manson`s Advocate, Mr Dunlop, behaved in a courteous and correct manner towards me.
On equitable grounds, Lord Stewart accepted the need for me to be provided with a level of professional expertise adequate for my defence, especially as I am currently acting alone in a foreign land whose laws I do not know, nor have I any legal obligation to possess such knowledge.
I asked Lord Stewart to direct the pursuer`s Counsel to disclose how certain items within the pursuer`s bundle presented to the defence had been obtained, i.e. private and confidential emails. Mr Dunlop said that these had been obtained from police records in connection with the public criminal case against me. I do not recall seeing these documents until they were recently presented to me, but that does not necessarily invalidate what Mr Dunlop had to say in regard to this private civil case. He did not go on to explain, however, precisely how or when they had been obtained, from whom and by who`s authority they had been provided to Elish Angiolini or her representatives.
I went on to disclose a letter, dated 16th April 2013, sent by me to the current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, asking him to provide to the Court of Session an assurance that public funds had not been accessed by the pursuer for the purpose of this private case, that could result in her personal financial gain. This query was stimulated by press reports that a secret "slush fund" of public money had been created for the use of senior Crown Office officials, past and present, in order for them to utilise in private legal actions for potential personal financial gain. The Crown Office has not yet clarified its position over these allegations, to my knowledge.
In this specific case, the Lord Advocate has failed to provide the requested assurance to the Court.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has been notified accordingly.
Returning to the matter of professional representation, for which I would require Legal Aid, I mentioned that the prospect of my receiving such aid could reasonably be said to be diminished by the fact that the Technical Head of the Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB), Douglas Haggarty, is himself a recent sex offender. This led me to suggest that a possible conflict of interest may exist within SLAB, as Mr Haggarty is likely to be more sympathetic to fellow sex offenders than to someone like me, who seeks to expose such criminal activities.
Lord Stewart was unaware of this particular case, which was widely publicised in Scotland, so I explained that in 2009, Mr Haggarty had been apprehended and charged after being found indulging in a sex act with a boy in the gents` toilets at British Home Stores, St Enoch Square, Glasgow on a busy Saturday afternoon, when families were in the vicinity.
After the hearing, I was astounded to learn that Angiolini`s Counsel had come to Court in order to represent her in complete ignorance that she had been cited by my Counsel at my trial to appear for cross-examination under oath and that she had subsequently refused to face the Court. Regardless of the merits of my allegations, I had always held that it was thus entirely unreasonable of Angiolini to take out a defamation action against me when I had previously provided her with the perfect opportunity to answer such allegations in open court. Had it been established by her evidence then that I had been inaccurate or mistaken in any regard, I would have offered a retraction and suitable public apology. In declining my offer, Elish Angiolini had denied me the opportunity of doing so, if appropriate. Mr Fred Tyler, senior partner of Balfour & Manson, has so far refused to offer an explanation as to how Counsel could have come to represent Angiolini and yet be unaware of crucial true facts.
Lord Stewart has suggested that it would be helpful for the two sides to come to an agreement and I stated that I have no objection in trying to cooperate in this regard. Mr Dunlop has made it clear that Elish Angiolini has no wish to carry on pursuing the case if such an agreement can be arrived at. I shall formulate my terms for her consideration shortly, but justice will need to be pursued and seen to be pursued in the case of Hollie Greig. Surely, Elish Angiolini would agree with me that the interests of a disabled Scottish rape victim should take precedence over those relevant to her reputation or indeed, to my freedom.
Irrespective of whether an acceptable agreement can be negotiated or not, no further hearing will take place until the autumn.
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
THANK YOU ALL AGAIN!
This is just a very brief message to all the kind people who have sent their best wishes and support for me today in Edinburgh , where I was forced to represent myself in court.
I am so grateful in particular to all those of you who came from many parts of Scotland and especially to Belinda, who travelled from London.
It must be said that I was pleased with the prospect of some constructive progress at last and the sheriff, Lord Stewart, treated me with courtesy and fair consideration, not always the case with the Scottish judiciary. I was pleasantly surprised at the change in attitude today, although there is still much to be considered yet. Whatever the outcome, there will be no more hearings for several months now and the sheriff agreed that I must be afforded professional legal representation in order for any important decisions to be made.
Let us hope that we can successfully continue in our quest for justice for Hollie and for the level of state protection for Scottish children and the disabled to which they are entitled.
Thank you all again for all your continuing kindness towards me and especially, for Hollie.
More soon.
Robert
This is just a very brief message to all the kind people who have sent their best wishes and support for me today in Edinburgh , where I was forced to represent myself in court.
I am so grateful in particular to all those of you who came from many parts of Scotland and especially to Belinda, who travelled from London.
It must be said that I was pleased with the prospect of some constructive progress at last and the sheriff, Lord Stewart, treated me with courtesy and fair consideration, not always the case with the Scottish judiciary. I was pleasantly surprised at the change in attitude today, although there is still much to be considered yet. Whatever the outcome, there will be no more hearings for several months now and the sheriff agreed that I must be afforded professional legal representation in order for any important decisions to be made.
Let us hope that we can successfully continue in our quest for justice for Hollie and for the level of state protection for Scottish children and the disabled to which they are entitled.
Thank you all again for all your continuing kindness towards me and especially, for Hollie.
More soon.
Robert
Friday, 26 April 2013
TOO HOT TO HANDLE?
The next hearing over Angiolini`s action against me is set to take place again at the Court of Session, Parliament Square, Edinburgh at 10.00 hrs on Wednesday 1st May. If anyone is able to come along to support me, I would be most grateful.
On this occasion, I am forced to represent myself as no Legal Aid is likely to be provided for me to be professionally represented. It seems that now Angiolini has amended her citation to include defamation, it appears that defence is more difficult, on the basis that someone as eminent as Elish Angiolini is simply too important to be criticised, unless you can actually prove your allegations.
That this state of affairs actually exists in Britain may come as a complete surprise to anyone who does not live under a totalitarian regime. In the rest of the UK, ex-Prime Ministers such as Tony Blair and Baroness Thatcher have been condemned in the most vitriolic way many times over the years, but as far as I know, no one has actually been jailed for these verbal attacks, however severe or unfair. I suppose one has to concede that Elish Angiolini is far more important that either of them. One only has to be thought to have claimed that she is unsuitable for a specific job to find oneself snatched from home and thrown into prison. As far as Scotland is concerned, the famous East German film "The Lives Of Others" is now "The Lives of Us"!
The timidity of the Scottish media has always baffled those who live outside the country. Now I think we know why. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression no longer exist there. The all-powerful Scottish magic circle holds both media and people in its iron grip. So Scottish children and the disabled get raped - who dares to say or do anything about it?
Not the media, with some honourable exceptions and certainly not the police. The latter seem to largely exist to ensure magic circle criminals are never arrested. That is not to say that Scottish police are not competent when dealing, for example, with drunks fighting in a Glasgow bar, but when it comes to vulnerable Scots being sexually abused, the police are more likely to support the perpetrators.
It is a shocking state of affairs and I do not think that what I have said is too much of an exaggeration.
Going back to my case, of course, I shall be hopelessly disadvantaged by having to represent myself in a civil case in a foreign land, in legal terms, where I not only have no knowledge of Scottish Civil Law, but also as a non-Scot and non-resident have absolutely no legal obligation to know it. On the other hand, my opponent is a QC and former head of the justice system, using two of Scotland`s most expensive law firms, Balfour & Manson and Levy & McRae. One is clearly not enough for someone as eminent as Angiolini. Nonetheless, last week I asked the current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland , to provide the court with an assurance that no public funds are being utilised for Angiolini`s private action, following press reports that a secret "slush fund" is thought to exist to enable senior Crown Office officials, past as well as present, to access public money for personal financial gain. The current head of the justice system has so far failed to provide this assurance for the court.
Also, certain items have been discovered this week within the bundle presented by Balfour & Manson. These are private and confidential emails between me and colleagues that could only realistically have been obtained unlawfully. Appropriate action is already under way to discover how these items could have possibly got into Angiolini`s lawyer`s hands. They have some explaining to do.
Of course, Angiolini is saying that I have made all kinds of inaccurate allegations to defame her. It is most outrageous that she now intends to sue me, as I provided her with every opportunity to address these concerns she claims to have by citing her as a witness at my trial. There, she would have been given every chance to defend herself, on oath , during cross-examination. If her sworn testimony held that I had been mistaken in any way, I would have made a public retraction and apology. She failed to allow me that opportunity by refusing to be questioned in a court of law. Why she refused to attend must be a matter for speculation, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that she did not wish to be faced with a situation where she had to choose between the truth and perjury. What kind of person with nothing to hide would avoid the chance to put the record straight in a public court?
I do not pretend to imagine whether someone with the apparent status of a high priestess would actually deign to attend the hearing on Wednesday. Nobody seems to know.
The next hearing over Angiolini`s action against me is set to take place again at the Court of Session, Parliament Square, Edinburgh at 10.00 hrs on Wednesday 1st May. If anyone is able to come along to support me, I would be most grateful.
On this occasion, I am forced to represent myself as no Legal Aid is likely to be provided for me to be professionally represented. It seems that now Angiolini has amended her citation to include defamation, it appears that defence is more difficult, on the basis that someone as eminent as Elish Angiolini is simply too important to be criticised, unless you can actually prove your allegations.
That this state of affairs actually exists in Britain may come as a complete surprise to anyone who does not live under a totalitarian regime. In the rest of the UK, ex-Prime Ministers such as Tony Blair and Baroness Thatcher have been condemned in the most vitriolic way many times over the years, but as far as I know, no one has actually been jailed for these verbal attacks, however severe or unfair. I suppose one has to concede that Elish Angiolini is far more important that either of them. One only has to be thought to have claimed that she is unsuitable for a specific job to find oneself snatched from home and thrown into prison. As far as Scotland is concerned, the famous East German film "The Lives Of Others" is now "The Lives of Us"!
The timidity of the Scottish media has always baffled those who live outside the country. Now I think we know why. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression no longer exist there. The all-powerful Scottish magic circle holds both media and people in its iron grip. So Scottish children and the disabled get raped - who dares to say or do anything about it?
Not the media, with some honourable exceptions and certainly not the police. The latter seem to largely exist to ensure magic circle criminals are never arrested. That is not to say that Scottish police are not competent when dealing, for example, with drunks fighting in a Glasgow bar, but when it comes to vulnerable Scots being sexually abused, the police are more likely to support the perpetrators.
It is a shocking state of affairs and I do not think that what I have said is too much of an exaggeration.
Going back to my case, of course, I shall be hopelessly disadvantaged by having to represent myself in a civil case in a foreign land, in legal terms, where I not only have no knowledge of Scottish Civil Law, but also as a non-Scot and non-resident have absolutely no legal obligation to know it. On the other hand, my opponent is a QC and former head of the justice system, using two of Scotland`s most expensive law firms, Balfour & Manson and Levy & McRae. One is clearly not enough for someone as eminent as Angiolini. Nonetheless, last week I asked the current Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland , to provide the court with an assurance that no public funds are being utilised for Angiolini`s private action, following press reports that a secret "slush fund" is thought to exist to enable senior Crown Office officials, past as well as present, to access public money for personal financial gain. The current head of the justice system has so far failed to provide this assurance for the court.
Also, certain items have been discovered this week within the bundle presented by Balfour & Manson. These are private and confidential emails between me and colleagues that could only realistically have been obtained unlawfully. Appropriate action is already under way to discover how these items could have possibly got into Angiolini`s lawyer`s hands. They have some explaining to do.
Of course, Angiolini is saying that I have made all kinds of inaccurate allegations to defame her. It is most outrageous that she now intends to sue me, as I provided her with every opportunity to address these concerns she claims to have by citing her as a witness at my trial. There, she would have been given every chance to defend herself, on oath , during cross-examination. If her sworn testimony held that I had been mistaken in any way, I would have made a public retraction and apology. She failed to allow me that opportunity by refusing to be questioned in a court of law. Why she refused to attend must be a matter for speculation, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that she did not wish to be faced with a situation where she had to choose between the truth and perjury. What kind of person with nothing to hide would avoid the chance to put the record straight in a public court?
I do not pretend to imagine whether someone with the apparent status of a high priestess would actually deign to attend the hearing on Wednesday. Nobody seems to know.
Friday, 19 April 2013
LOCKERBIE - POLICE TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINALITY AT THE SCOTTISH CROWN OFFICE
The announcement of an investigation of this kind will probably come as no surprise to many people who have had any appreciable contact with the Crown Office in Edinburgh and certainly as no surprise at all to those who have followed the Hollie Greig case.
It is already perfectly clear, based on the evidence now available, that senior figures in the justice system have blatantly and publicly lied about certain crucial aspects of the Lockerbie case and the reasons given for the release of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.
Although this terrible crime could hardly be further removed from the crimes committed against Hollie Greig, some of the same individuals in Scotland are involved in both of the cover ups, which required the imprisoning of innocent people.
Protests against the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi have come from a numerous and wide variety of eminent and respected persons, including Dr Jim Swire, Professor Noam Chomsky, Professor Robert Black QC, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Kate Adie. Additionally, in general terms, the Crown Office has been publicly described as "institutionally corrupt" by distinguished counsel Jock Thomson QC.
In 2009, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and the then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini both made public statements relating to the release of Mr Al-Megrahi that were later shown to be entirely false. What is more, both senior officials must have known at the time that the CIA had bribed key prosecution witness Tony Gauci to the tune of $2 million in order to help secure Mr Al-Megrahi`s conviction. Clearly, in those circumstances, Gauci`s evidence could on no account be regarded as being reliable. In short, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the CIA`s action in paying this witness indicated that it did not wish the identity or identities of the real culprit(s) to be discovered.
Knowledge of this information did not prevent Elish Angiolini, in September 2009, from "deploring" Mr Al-Megrahi`s plan to appeal against his conviction. What could possibly be described as deplorable the desire of a man, seriously ill and imprisoned a long way from his own country and family, to lodge an appeal against a conviction that was already known to be transparently unsound?
On Wednesday, 1st May, at the Court of Session in Parliament Square, Edinburgh, at 10.00 hrs, a further hearing is due to take place over my challenge against Elish Angiolini`s civil action to effectively silence me over salient aspects of Hollie`s case.
I was so grateful to all the supporters of the Hollie Greig case for attending the previous hearing on 6th March and filling the Court. Their decency, compassion and courage is appreciated and the many messages received from those who could not be there was also a source for gratitude. If it is not too much to ask, I would be most thankful for any similar displays of support on 1st May.
It is not yet known whether Elish Angiolini will actually decide to make her first appearance on this occasion. It should not be forgotten that many of the allegations she has made against me could have been resolved, had she not refused to face cross-examination at my trial when cited as a defence witness to do so. Surely, it may be argued that if Elish Angiolini had nothing to conceal, one might have expected her to take up the opportunity I offered her to speak publicly about the issues raised, on Oath.
The announcement of an investigation of this kind will probably come as no surprise to many people who have had any appreciable contact with the Crown Office in Edinburgh and certainly as no surprise at all to those who have followed the Hollie Greig case.
It is already perfectly clear, based on the evidence now available, that senior figures in the justice system have blatantly and publicly lied about certain crucial aspects of the Lockerbie case and the reasons given for the release of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi.
Although this terrible crime could hardly be further removed from the crimes committed against Hollie Greig, some of the same individuals in Scotland are involved in both of the cover ups, which required the imprisoning of innocent people.
Protests against the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi have come from a numerous and wide variety of eminent and respected persons, including Dr Jim Swire, Professor Noam Chomsky, Professor Robert Black QC, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Kate Adie. Additionally, in general terms, the Crown Office has been publicly described as "institutionally corrupt" by distinguished counsel Jock Thomson QC.
In 2009, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and the then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini both made public statements relating to the release of Mr Al-Megrahi that were later shown to be entirely false. What is more, both senior officials must have known at the time that the CIA had bribed key prosecution witness Tony Gauci to the tune of $2 million in order to help secure Mr Al-Megrahi`s conviction. Clearly, in those circumstances, Gauci`s evidence could on no account be regarded as being reliable. In short, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the CIA`s action in paying this witness indicated that it did not wish the identity or identities of the real culprit(s) to be discovered.
Knowledge of this information did not prevent Elish Angiolini, in September 2009, from "deploring" Mr Al-Megrahi`s plan to appeal against his conviction. What could possibly be described as deplorable the desire of a man, seriously ill and imprisoned a long way from his own country and family, to lodge an appeal against a conviction that was already known to be transparently unsound?
On Wednesday, 1st May, at the Court of Session in Parliament Square, Edinburgh, at 10.00 hrs, a further hearing is due to take place over my challenge against Elish Angiolini`s civil action to effectively silence me over salient aspects of Hollie`s case.
I was so grateful to all the supporters of the Hollie Greig case for attending the previous hearing on 6th March and filling the Court. Their decency, compassion and courage is appreciated and the many messages received from those who could not be there was also a source for gratitude. If it is not too much to ask, I would be most thankful for any similar displays of support on 1st May.
It is not yet known whether Elish Angiolini will actually decide to make her first appearance on this occasion. It should not be forgotten that many of the allegations she has made against me could have been resolved, had she not refused to face cross-examination at my trial when cited as a defence witness to do so. Surely, it may be argued that if Elish Angiolini had nothing to conceal, one might have expected her to take up the opportunity I offered her to speak publicly about the issues raised, on Oath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)