Mr Todd Stammers
1 Gate House
1 Farringdon St
London EC4M 7LG
22nd November 2017
Dear Mr Stammers,
Thank you for your email of 17th November 2017 and this reply is to address the points made.
I believe it is of importance for IPSO to have in its possession key documentary evidence due to the monumental issues raised by this case, which in one important way surpasses even the Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith cover ups. In both matters, the so-called free press were again complicit in conspiring to keep the widespread concerns and facts from the public and in doing so, allowed countless defenceless victims to be horribly abused on a staggering scale.
In the Hollie Greig case, you now have evidence before you that the past and present leaders of the Scottish government, Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, actually twice broke the law in order to try to conceal these alleged crimes from the people of Scotland. I am not aware that any similar irrefutable evidence exists in the Savile and Smith cases.
You chose to use, as I mentioned, an article from the Press &Journal to help justify the Daily Mail’s position, but you could have equally selected a far more accurate article from the same publication with the heading, “Hollie tells police she was abused by sheriff”, which confirms my position that it the allegations came from Hollie, rather than me.
Of course, you will have noted that Hollie’s detailed allegations were entirely supported by all the experts who had personally dealt with her, including Dr Jack Boyle, Dr Eva Harding, Dr Frances Kelly (Forensic Medical Officer to Grampian Police), Dr Paul Carter, Susannah Seyman and Ruth Beckmann of the Down’s Syndrome Association, police officers under the command of Chief Constable Andrew Brown and the panel of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
Thus, the Daily Mail’s disgraceful smears in stating that Hollie’s allegations were false constitute a cruel and cowardly attack on an astonishingly courageous disabled multiple rape victim.
There can hardly have ever been a more glaring example of gutter journalism at its worst than those demonstrated within the two relevant articles published by the Daily Mail.
Now, I shall return to the specific matters detailed in your email.
I have never approached nor have had any intention of approaching Graham Buchanan over Hollie Greig’s allegations nor any other matter, even though detailed information was given by Hollie to the police about Sheriff Buchanan, in my presence, on 8th September 2009. Nonetheless, I did not harass him.
The stipulation that I had accused Graham Buchanan of murder or of his being involved in a murder was completely without foundation and when I successfully challenged his solicitors Simpson & Marwick to provide any such evidence, the firm were unable to do so. In fact nothing more was ever heard from this firm nor anyone else acting on behalf of Graham Buchanan. Thus, this section of the document was utterly bogus. Neither could the court produce any such information to support this section of the interdict. It simply did not exist and was thus entirely false.
I repeat that my arrest was also completely and provably unlawful, as detailed in previous correspondence. The said interdict had never been served upon me at the time of my being arrested for breaching the terms of a document that had not been served upon me and was thus invalid.
My detention was unlawful due to Scotland’s failure to honour its commitment to its solemn obligations under the ECHR. See the Peter Cadder case — I was one of approximately 76,000, yes, 76,000, people falsely arrested and charged in Scotland over a thirty-year period, as confirmed by the ruling of the Supreme Court!
The charge against me was not for harassment but for a breach of the peace. It is important to be aware that this charge is significantly different in Scottish law to that of a similar term used in English law and covers a very wide range of offences. It is quite separate from harassment and therefore the Daily Mail is in error. It might have been helpful had the publication taken the trouble to examine the differences of Scottish and English law instead of misleading its readers by conflating them.
I was convicted, despite my wrongful arrest, on a summary charge, without access to a jury on the breach of the peace issue. It is worth noting that whilst the Daily Mail was persistently criticising the one and a half million pounds of taxpayers’ money spent on Operation Conifer, it has made no mention of the approximately £2 million of public funds spent on attempting to silence me, an individual largely unknown to the population.
My only “crime” was in publicly repeating the allegations made by Hollie Greig after the police had refused to even question the accused, despite all the overwhelming evidence supporting Hollie and the fact that one of acknowledged experts had even unequivocally named two of those named as definite sexual abusers of Hollie.
I was motivated by Christian, moral and legal obligations that if Hollie was telling the truth and all the independent experts who have examined her are in no doubt that she was telling the truth, then countless children and the disabled were and remain at serious risk of sexual abuse. It is therefore my duty to act, as a law-abiding citizen, given the failure of the police, as admitted on oath in court, to conduct an adequate investigation into Hollie’s allegations. You will note that within the nomination from a parliamentarian for me to receive the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize, a reference is made to this particular issue as well as a comparison to similar failures in the Jimmy Savile case.
It is unreasonable and inaccurate to have described my behaviour as harassment.
Finally, I return to the further fundamental failure by the Daily Mail in misleading its readership by not even attempting to make contact with me before attacking me in public. All of the evidence I have provided to you would have been made available to the Daily Mail had it been sufficiently interested in providing balanced journalism to its readers. Indeed, the bulk of it was readily accessible in the public domain had not the Daily Mail been so consumed by its irrational and illogical bias.
I’m sure that IPSO will have seen enough by now to demonstrate that the Daily Mail’s description of me as a “hoaxer” is a ludicrous fabrication devoid of any support from the independent experts on whose evidence I relied and furthermore, describing Hollie’s allegations as “false” is equally inaccurate and grossly offensive.
Again, had the Daily Mail bothered to speak to me, I would have told them that HoMe’s allegations are formally currently under formal consideration by the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry!
If you require further assistance, please be assured of my commitment to cooperate fully with IPSO.
Robert Green [ends]