"Rusty the Boddington's Badger said... 16 February 2010 18:16 Dark Lochnagar said... You wasted a serious story with shite talk. Leave that for the non-serious stories.
No so - obviously the Truth hasn't worked so far in bringing this scum before Ladt Justice's review - thus I castigate them with satire to expose an establishment system rife with graft n corruption that believes it can get away with arresting Rob Green on a connived charge of breach of the peace and hold the hearing sub rosa. Amen. Pax vobis.
I watched the videos DL. Has anyone asked Alex Salmond about the case ? He's getting pelters in the video and it would be fair to find out what he's actually done to investigate this case. Or not done. He could take up this case to balance his backing for Pakistanis etc. He's our First Minister and his Lord Advocate seems to be a stranger to the truth and one of his citizens was abused. All the MSPs and media outlets have been sent the files by Robert Green so it's hardly a secret now. I notice the solicitor Anna Raccoon seems to be trying to muddy the waters. Do you think she's a mole rather than a raccoon ?
Alexers, I think that sooner or later he has to make some comment. Remember Angolini was in off ice before they came in and they just let her stay in place.
Any One Ask Alex..I wrote a short e mail to Alex Salmond, and a longer one to Rob Gibson, my msp, on Monday. Someone in the UK Column suggested everyone do this. It adds pressure for a transparent independent reinvestigation of the case from scratch. Also wrote to Angolini, but that was probably a waste of time.
Anna really pissed me off as well yesterday. Her argument is that nothing can be done about Hollie, because there is no corroborating evidence. Well of course, as Grampian plod have never interviewed the 16 alleged abusers, and the 7 other alleged child victims, over a twelve year period, how can there be? I really cannot go along with her, that a 6 year old downs girl may have sexual feelings ,and was somehow complicit in what happened. She was not very happy when I asked if she was moonlighting for the Crown Office. Just thought her whole post was crap.
Icke was good on the Alex Jones show. Pity about the Psyops false flag aircraft attack in Texas though. We had to wait until near the end of the show to get into our case. Ten minutes of the case worldwide though. And Scotland now looking very bad in the eyes of the world. Not sure if we're the 'world centre for masonic satanic child abuse' but hopefully it will get Salmond investigating what's going on.
Dave, I've just read her piece for the first time as I got a bit tied up today. I agree with you, that it was crap and I've commented accusing her of being a Grampian Police appeaser. I'll see if she agrees.
Anonymous, listening tomit now. But I don't like Icke. He's a prick. He's sore on Scotland because he predicted Arran was going to sink and it didn't happen!
Lochnagar, In two parts owing to word limit. You are misrepresenting me. I am not a solicitor, I am a specialised mental health lawyer, there is a difference. My argument is not that 'nothing can be done' about the girl because there is no corroborating evidence, although that is a side effect of the problem, my argument is that being able to give evidence to the best of your ability meets the requirements of a civil case which is why she was able to get compensation but may not be high enough for a criminal case. It is for a judge to decide whether a witness can give evidence in a credible manner under oath in a criminal case, but it is for the prosecution to produce evidence that she can. As simply put as possible, if they do not feel that they can produce evidence as to her ability to be fully cognoscent of the meaning of an oath, and her ability to give credible responses under cross examination, they will not put her on the witness stand. If their main witness cannot stand up to cross examination on the witness stand, then it does not matter how many other people you have investigated or interviewed, you will not have a case. Being truthful in a family setting or a one to one interview in a specialised police suite is a world away from being cross examined by a criminal defence lawyer. That is, if you step away from the emotive facts in this case for a minute, how it should be. If you or anyone else is going to go to prison for a serious criminal offence, you are entitled to expect that the evidence will be torn apart and inspected in minute detail, you are entitled to expect that that your defence lawyer will use every trick in the book to discredit the prosecution's main witness who will be on oath. Interviewing those she has named is not going to corroborate her story is it? Unless you believe that they will confess all.
Interviewing the other children is just going to give you more witnesses with the same problem of giving evidence as the original witness. My recognition of that hard fact of life is interpreted by you as being shilling for the Scottish Office, it is not, it is that I have been involved in many such cases, and I am well aware of the problems involved. Yes, it is wrong, totally wrong, and I have burned with rage over the years regarding some of these girls - and on the subject of sexualisation I did not saying that she was 'somehow complicit' in her abuse. I was very specific in my comments - the tactile behaviour and desire to please, and their ability to exhibit the same range of high - or low- sexuality as the rest of us, of some Down's girls and boys is taken by paedophiles as an indication that their repulsive behaviour is welcomed, that is why they are a disproportionate target for abuse, I went on to say that that in no way excused the behaviour of those men, or of anyone else who uses their willingness to please to their own ends. It is not just the police in Aberdeen, but police all across the British Isles that fail to prosecute these cases, not because they are covering up for a gang of paedophiles, but because of the impossibility of mounting a criminal prosecution. I am currently sitting looking at case files of hundreds of such cases. The only solution is to change the law so that it is possible for a person to be sent to prison on the basis of the word of someone who cannot be cross examined, and who does not fully comprehend the meaning of the oath - do that and you have a dangerous world for all of us.
Anna Well we didn't even see a civil case so why did she get compensation ? I think people are just fed up with cover ups and want the truth for a change. A concensus was building to throw some light on this situation and you write something that makes things more uncertain. We've had 2 Lockerbie cover ups, the Dunblane cover up, 3 Iraq cover ups and now another cover up. The MSM are easily quietened so we have to use what limited influence we have on the internet to get something done for a change. Your expertise could have been put to arguing for an inquiry but instead you use your knowledge to show all the reasons for shutting this inquiry down.
help us Anna, There doesn't have to be a civil case in order for the criminal injuries board to pay out - but the standard of evidence required is 'to the civil standard' which is a lot lower than to criminal standard. Compensation is paid on evidence of someone having been the innocent victim - which she certainly was - of violent crime - which the medical evidence proved. It doesn't require any evidence as to who has carried out the crime. I understand the passions arroused by cover-ups, but first you have to address the issue of the standard of evidence required, otherwise you may well get your inquiry, but at the end of it, you will still have the basic problem that you don't have the means to get a conviction. There are a number of different factors coming together here - first people are assuming that because she had compensation that there is a correlation between that and who she says committed the crime, secondly that becasue she was considered truthful by the police as a basis for the criminal injuries board that she is automatically fit to give evidence to criminal standards, and that if she isn't being asked to do so 'it can only be' that someone is being protected. In the meantime, whilst we are working out how to get a conviction on this basis, I see red when I see the girl being touted around as 'living proof' of a cover-up and am told that it's OK 'because she is very willing to do it, she actually enjoys it' - er, haven't I heard that excuse somewhere else before? Yup, the very same one that paedophiles trot out..... If you want to get up a petition to the Scottish Office to change the level of evidence required in these specific cases, I shall be right there with you, if we succeed, then there will be some point to forcing an inquiry, but I will not be party to abusing this vulnerable girl's willingness to please by sitting quietly whilst she is touted round the country by an organisation which sees conspiracies under every bed. The MSM are hardly likely to start naming names in the way that some people want, when their only defence against a libel trial would be to prove conclusively that she was abused by the specific people named. How would they do that when their 'star witness' as it were, couldn't stand up to cross examination. 'Er, well she told me that is who did it yer honour' is not sufficient to save them from an almighty libel payout that would put them out of business. I'm not trying to shut down any inquiry, I'm just trying to put the horse before your cart - if the point of an inquiry is to bring the guilty to trial, then we need to find a way in which such a trial can take place.
Anna.. "Interviewing the other children is just going to give you more witnesses with the same problem of giving evidence as the original witness". Why? Am I missing something here? Do you know things about the victims we don't?
Anna, Welcome. First of all, I don't think that I misrepresented you. Although I have read your blog occasionally, I have no idea what your background is. What I said was, "Dave, I've just read her piece for the first time as I got a bit tied up today. I agree with you, that it was crap and I've commented accusing her of being a Grampian Police appeaser. I'll see if she agrees". Well you obviously don't agree. What troubles me in this case is the total lack of interest from Grampian police. Holly named another 7 victims of this paedophile ring. Have they been questioned? What about the abusers? Have they been brought in under Police caution and sweated a little to see what they might yield? Why was the BBC investigation pulled? Why are the MSM being served with 'D' notices? What are the links if any with Dunblane and Thomas Hamilton? The problem is Anna, there are too many unanswered questions and until they have been answered rumours are going to circulate. I am a Scottish Nationalist and it grieves me to hear my country being denegrated on American Radio by tubes like David Icke who 15 years ago was predicting that the Isle of Arran which I am looking at right now out of my office window was going to sink! Thank Christ for the internet. 30 years ago the MSM would have been muzzled and stories like this would have never seen the light of day. If you are sitting on other similiar cases why don't you bang on about them in your blog? You would have support from other political bloggers, who by now must number thousands. If the truth is out there, then it has to be told.
Dave, I agree. Surely any jury is going to side towards the victims if 8 of them come into court and testify, disregarding what the defense lawers tried to make of their testimonies.
Dave and anonymous, I finally got to the end of the tape! It's an intersting show and to be fair To Icke, I thought he came across well. I was maybe doing him an injustice earlier.
DL Common sense tells me we are right about the impact of 8 witnesses; even if they were to all be downs sufferers. I thought the courts made special arrangements for vulnerable people giving evidence anyway. Always felt Icke was a nut job until this week, but not any longer. Maybe the guy was too far ahead of us 20 years ago.
Anna. An inquiry would be nice as it usually opens up other doors and brings in more evidence. And people change their tune when they start swearing on oath. Ok the end result may not be a satisfactory conviction but at least the public will be more aware of the sick society our leaders have landed us with. I notice there's a breaking case in Dundee with police accused of drugging and abusing a vulnerable colleague. The sheriff wants an inquiry. Aye right. That'll happen. Not.
DL Yes David Icke doesn't seem so mad now. The agw climate activists are wackier by a long way. Ice gone in the himalalayan glaciers in 20 years time etc. Or how about this gem. A doctor being paid £140K a year to do 'green research' into how climate change can affect people with kidney disease. Can we recycle the water used in dialysis etc. Like we can spare doctors for this shoite ?...
Dave, Aye Icke came across quite well I must admit. He wwas saying something about bringing out a book quite soon, it may make interesting reading. That American Radio Station although a bit over the top with 'buy your seeds now' and generate your own lecce was quite good to listen too in the background.
Anonymous, Yes an enquiry would be welcomed at least by me and I suspect by quite a few others. As far as the AGW nutters are concerned, I prefer the ' belt and braces approach '. If it's cheaper for me and it saves me money, I'll go for it. If not, I'm not interested. But then again I don't have kids so the buck stops with me, so to speak. For instance we drive a Nissan Quashqai, 1500cc diesel. Not because I want to save the planet but because it is roomy and does 50 MPG, so it doesn't cost as much to run.
Still pretty much nonplussed that BBC Scotland have ignored this story, particularly when they're giving it big licks for a flasher story in Aberdeen....
Mark, aye right enough, going by your photo you look like you could do with a feed! If you follow the story BBC Scotland were going to do a ducumentary on the story and it got pulled because the Director was seemingly threatened with the sack. We'll see if the courageous and investigative Scottish press comes up with anything tomorrow, but I'm not holding my breath.
30 comments:
"Rusty the Boddington's Badger said...
16 February 2010 18:16
Dark Lochnagar said...
You wasted a serious story with shite talk. Leave that for the non-serious stories.
No so - obviously the Truth hasn't worked so far in bringing this scum before Ladt Justice's review - thus I castigate them with satire to expose an establishment system rife with graft n corruption that believes it can get away with arresting Rob Green on a connived charge of breach of the peace and hold the hearing sub rosa.
Amen. Pax vobis.
17 February 2010 04:50"
I watched the videos DL. Has anyone asked Alex Salmond about the case ? He's getting pelters in the video and it would be fair to find out what he's actually done to investigate this case. Or not done. He could take up this case to balance his backing for Pakistanis etc. He's our First Minister and his Lord Advocate seems to be a stranger to the truth and one of his citizens was abused.
All the MSPs and media outlets have been sent the files by Robert Green so it's hardly a secret now.
I notice the solicitor Anna Raccoon seems to be trying to muddy the waters. Do you think she's a mole rather than a raccoon ?
Banned,, I didn't know that was one of your aliases. But I stand by my comment.
Alexers, I think that sooner or later he has to make some comment. Remember Angolini was in off ice before they came in and they just let her stay in place.
Any One Ask Alex..I wrote a short e mail to Alex Salmond, and a longer one to Rob Gibson, my msp, on Monday. Someone in the UK Column suggested everyone do this. It adds pressure for a transparent independent reinvestigation of the case from scratch. Also wrote to Angolini, but that was probably a waste of time.
Anna really pissed me off as well yesterday. Her argument is that nothing can be done about Hollie, because there is no corroborating evidence. Well of course, as Grampian plod have never interviewed the 16 alleged abusers, and the 7 other alleged child victims, over a twelve year period, how can there be? I really cannot go along with her, that a 6 year old downs girl may have sexual feelings ,and was somehow complicit in what happened. She was not very happy when I asked if she was moonlighting for the Crown Office. Just thought her whole post was crap.
Erk..I see the cheeseblogger is now on to the case !
Alex Jones is interviewing Icke 6pm today. Should be on this link. I know you really love Dave, son of God. Thats Icke, not Cameron.
http://www.infowars.com/listen.html
Icke was good on the Alex Jones show. Pity about the Psyops false flag aircraft attack in Texas though. We had to wait until near the end of the show to get into our case. Ten minutes of the case worldwide though. And Scotland now looking very bad in the eyes of the world. Not sure if we're the 'world centre for masonic satanic child abuse' but hopefully it will get Salmond investigating what's going on.
DL, it was the response of that blogs author to your comment on his 'trivialisation' of the issue.
Dave, I've just read her piece for the first time as I got a bit tied up today. I agree with you, that it was crap and I've commented accusing her of being a Grampian Police appeaser. I'll see if she agrees.
Anonymous, yes, Cheeseman is late as usual
Thanks Dave, I'm listening to it now. I've got some fucker telling me how to speed up my laptop!
Anonymous, listening tomit now. But I don't like Icke. He's a prick. He's sore on Scotland because he predicted Arran was going to sink and it didn't happen!
Banned, sorry I picked you up wrong. It didn't sound like you. No, I just thought the language he used was trivialitising the story.
Lochnagar,
In two parts owing to word limit.
You are misrepresenting me.
I am not a solicitor, I am a specialised mental health lawyer, there is a difference.
My argument is not that 'nothing can be done' about the girl because there is no corroborating evidence, although that is a side effect of the problem, my argument is that being able to give evidence to the best of your ability meets the requirements of a civil case which is why she was able to get compensation but may not be high enough for a criminal case.
It is for a judge to decide whether a witness can give evidence in a credible manner under oath in a criminal case, but it is for the prosecution to produce evidence that she can. As simply put as possible, if they do not feel that they can produce evidence as to her ability to be fully cognoscent of the meaning of an oath, and her ability to give credible responses under cross examination, they will not put her on the witness stand.
If their main witness cannot stand up to cross examination on the witness stand, then it does not matter how many other people you have investigated or interviewed, you will not have a case.
Being truthful in a family setting or a one to one interview in a specialised police suite is a world away from being cross examined by a criminal defence lawyer.
That is, if you step away from the emotive facts in this case for a minute, how it should be. If you or anyone else is going to go to prison for a serious criminal offence, you are entitled to expect that the evidence will be torn apart and inspected in minute detail, you are entitled to expect that that your defence lawyer will use every trick in the book to discredit the prosecution's main witness who will be on oath.
Interviewing those she has named is not going to corroborate her story is it? Unless you believe that they will confess all.
Interviewing the other children is just going to give you more witnesses with the same problem of giving evidence as the original witness.
My recognition of that hard fact of life is interpreted by you as being shilling for the Scottish Office, it is not, it is that I have been involved in many such cases, and I am well aware of the problems involved.
Yes, it is wrong, totally wrong, and I have burned with rage over the years regarding some of these girls - and on the subject of sexualisation I did not saying that she was 'somehow complicit' in her abuse. I was very specific in my comments - the tactile behaviour and desire to please, and their ability to exhibit the same range of high - or low- sexuality as the rest of us, of some Down's girls and boys is taken by paedophiles as an indication that their repulsive behaviour is welcomed, that is why they are a disproportionate target for abuse, I went on to say that that in no way excused the behaviour of those men, or of anyone else who uses their willingness to please to their own ends.
It is not just the police in Aberdeen, but police all across the British Isles that fail to prosecute these cases, not because they are covering up for a gang of paedophiles, but because of the impossibility of mounting a criminal prosecution.
I am currently sitting looking at case files of hundreds of such cases.
The only solution is to change the law so that it is possible for a person to be sent to prison on the basis of the word of someone who cannot be cross examined, and who does not fully comprehend the meaning of the oath - do that and you have a dangerous world for all of us.
Anna
Well we didn't even see a civil case so why did she get compensation ?
I think people are just fed up with cover ups and want the truth for a change. A concensus was building to throw some light on this situation and you write something that makes things more uncertain.
We've had 2 Lockerbie cover ups, the Dunblane cover up, 3 Iraq cover ups and now another cover up. The MSM are easily quietened so we have to use what limited influence we have on the internet to get something done for a change. Your expertise could have been put to arguing for an inquiry but instead you use your knowledge to show all the reasons for shutting this inquiry down.
help us Anna,
There doesn't have to be a civil case in order for the criminal injuries board to pay out - but the standard of evidence required is 'to the civil standard' which is a lot lower than to criminal standard. Compensation is paid on evidence of someone having been the innocent victim - which she certainly was - of violent crime - which the medical evidence proved. It doesn't require any evidence as to who has carried out the crime.
I understand the passions arroused by cover-ups, but first you have to address the issue of the standard of evidence required, otherwise you may well get your inquiry, but at the end of it, you will still have the basic problem that you don't have the means to get a conviction.
There are a number of different factors coming together here - first people are assuming that because she had compensation that there is a correlation between that and who she says committed the crime, secondly that becasue she was considered truthful by the police as a basis for the criminal injuries board that she is automatically fit to give evidence to criminal standards, and that if she isn't being asked to do so 'it can only be' that someone is being protected.
In the meantime, whilst we are working out how to get a conviction on this basis, I see red when I see the girl being touted around as 'living proof' of a cover-up and am told that it's OK 'because she is very willing to do it, she actually enjoys it' - er, haven't I heard that excuse somewhere else before? Yup, the very same one that paedophiles trot out.....
If you want to get up a petition to the Scottish Office to change the level of evidence required in these specific cases, I shall be right there with you, if we succeed, then there will be some point to forcing an inquiry, but I will not be party to abusing this vulnerable girl's willingness to please by sitting quietly whilst she is touted round the country by an organisation which sees conspiracies under every bed.
The MSM are hardly likely to start naming names in the way that some people want, when their only defence against a libel trial would be to prove conclusively that she was abused by the specific people named. How would they do that when their 'star witness' as it were, couldn't stand up to cross examination.
'Er, well she told me that is who did it yer honour' is not sufficient to save them from an almighty libel payout that would put them out of business.
I'm not trying to shut down any inquiry, I'm just trying to put the horse before your cart - if the point of an inquiry is to bring the guilty to trial, then we need to find a way in which such a trial can take place.
Anna..
"Interviewing the other children is just going to give you more witnesses with the same problem of giving evidence as the original witness". Why? Am I missing something here? Do you know things about the victims we don't?
Anna, Welcome. First of all, I don't think that I misrepresented you. Although I have read your blog occasionally, I have no idea what your background is. What I said was, "Dave, I've just read her piece for the first time as I got a bit tied up today. I agree with you, that it was crap and I've commented accusing her of being a Grampian Police appeaser. I'll see if she agrees". Well you obviously don't agree. What troubles me in this case is the total lack of interest from Grampian police. Holly named another 7 victims of this paedophile ring. Have they been questioned? What about the abusers? Have they been brought in under Police caution and sweated a little to see what they might yield? Why was the BBC investigation pulled? Why are the MSM being served with 'D' notices? What are the links if any with Dunblane and Thomas Hamilton? The problem is Anna, there are too many unanswered questions and until they have been answered rumours are going to circulate. I am a Scottish Nationalist and it grieves me to hear my country being denegrated on American Radio by tubes like David Icke who 15 years ago was predicting that the Isle of Arran which I am looking at right now out of my office window was going to sink! Thank Christ for the internet. 30 years ago the MSM would have been muzzled and stories like this would have never seen the light of day. If you are sitting on other similiar cases why don't you bang on about them in your blog? You would have support from other political bloggers, who by now must number thousands. If the truth is out there, then it has to be told.
Dave, I agree. Surely any jury is going to side towards the victims if 8 of them come into court and testify, disregarding what the defense lawers tried to make of their testimonies.
Dave and anonymous, I finally got to the end of the tape! It's an intersting show and to be fair To Icke, I thought he came across well. I was maybe doing him an injustice earlier.
DL Common sense tells me we are right about the impact of 8 witnesses; even if they were to all be downs sufferers. I thought the courts made special arrangements for vulnerable people giving evidence anyway. Always felt Icke was a nut job until this week, but not any longer. Maybe the guy was too far ahead of us 20 years ago.
Anna.
An inquiry would be nice as it usually opens up other doors and brings in more evidence. And people change their tune when they start swearing on oath. Ok the end result may not be a satisfactory conviction but at least the public will be more aware of the sick society our leaders have landed us with. I notice there's a breaking case in Dundee with police accused of drugging and abusing a vulnerable colleague. The sheriff wants an inquiry. Aye right. That'll happen. Not.
DL
Yes David Icke doesn't seem so mad now. The agw climate activists are wackier by a long way. Ice gone in the himalalayan glaciers in 20 years time etc. Or how about this gem. A doctor being paid £140K a year to do 'green research' into how climate change can affect people with kidney disease. Can we recycle the water used in dialysis etc. Like we can spare doctors for this shoite ?...
http://www.greenerhealthcare.org/blog/2009/11/green-nephrology
Oi, DL I've got a habit of coming late. Ask your wife. ;)
Anonymous Erk! that sounds familiar, someone else with view of Arran?
Dave, Aye Icke came across quite well I must admit. He wwas saying something about bringing out a book quite soon, it may make interesting reading. That American Radio Station although a bit over the top with 'buy your seeds now' and generate your own lecce was quite good to listen too in the background.
Anonymous, Yes an enquiry would be welcomed at least by me and I suspect by quite a few others. As far as the AGW nutters are concerned, I prefer the ' belt and braces approach '. If it's cheaper for me and it saves me money, I'll go for it. If not, I'm not interested. But then again I don't have kids so the buck stops with me, so to speak. For instance we drive a Nissan Quashqai, 1500cc diesel. Not because I want to save the planet but because it is roomy and does 50 MPG, so it doesn't cost as much to run.
Mark, I did and she says she's fed up waiting for you. She says she could have made a pot of mince and tatties in the time it takes you. ;-)
Mmm tatties, more sustenance.
Still pretty much nonplussed that BBC Scotland have ignored this story, particularly when they're giving it big licks for a flasher story in Aberdeen....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8516140.stm
Mark, aye right enough, going by your photo you look like you could do with a feed!
If you follow the story BBC Scotland were going to do a ducumentary on the story and it got pulled because the Director was seemingly threatened with the sack. We'll see if the courageous and investigative Scottish press comes up with anything tomorrow, but I'm not holding my breath.
Post a Comment