Paedophilia is an emotive subject; banned in ‘polite’ media circles, it has become virtually the exclusive province of the Blogosphere.

Every day – as Matt Wardman discovered when he took over my e-mail account whilst I was indisposed! – I receive long emotive e-mails, apparently addressed to half the world; Her Majesty the Queen, the Lord High Executioner and the Chief Constable of ‘x’ regularly appear as co-recipients to myself in hysterical hyperbolic e-mails naming alleged paedophiles and begging me to write blog posts and have ‘the courage’ to name and shame those alleged to  be involved.

I well remember the Hollie Greig affair, when I published a list of the known ‘facts’ – as opposed to mere opinions, pertaining to the passionate campaign raging on the Internet concerning what was said to be a deliberate attempt to suppress investigation of a case of a paedophilia. It felt at the time as though half the Blogosphere had descended on my head for having the temerity to suggest that all the information circulating on-line was less than factual.

I wrote at the time:

I don’t intend to name the young woman because if there is anything which comes close to the obscenity of child abuse, it is the abuse of a child which takes place when the self righteous decide to use her name and face to publicise themselves in the name of a variation of ‘free speech’ that they would be the first to decry if it were turned on them or in the name of a demand for criminal prosecution on such flimsy evidence.

Since the facts of such cases are invariably, and correctly, shrouded in the secret cloak of Injunctions; Hyper, Super, or merely common or garden, they instantly become grist to the over excited conspiracy mill; churned, elaborated, retweeted, planted in fresh pastures – to be regurgitated as ‘fact’ in later blog posts.

A section of the Blogosphere is tempted to engage in trial by blog, with no evidence offered for the defence – and any opposition to this process is regarded as suppression of ‘free speech’ and hysterically denounced.

The e-mails pile up in my inbox, liberally sprinkled with words from the lexicon of hyperbole such as ‘tortured’, ‘held prisoner’, ‘an epidemic of judicial criminality’ ‘Masonic conspiracy’; the Pope features regularly, as does anybody who is suspected of having Jewish ancestry.

I ignore them. Stepping into these turbulent waters is to invite the courteous attentions of Messrs Carter and Ruck that I can well do without – delightful correspondents though they may well be.

Thus it has proved in the matter of Ms Vicky Haigh.  Not a name I have mentioned in the past, for good reason.

I supported John Hemming MP when he raised her name under parliamentary procedure – not in respect of the underlying case, but because she had been threatened with imprisonment for speaking of it at a parliamentary meeting.

The notion that we can raise concerns with our parliamentary representatives is an important and ancient principle. Hemming was right to include this case in his list of concerns at judicial encroachment on our relationship with our parliamentary representatives. However, even he deftly steered away from championing Ms Haigh’s actual allegations of paedophilia within her family.

How can anybody be sure of the truth of allegations that circulate on the Internet, particularly when they are championed by the sort of hysterical e-mails I have described above?

The proven facts of the Haigh case are now in the public domain, following the 22^nd August 2011 judgment of Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division. (Link to full case as soon as a publicly accessible transcript is available on Bailli.)

Mr Tune, the father of Ms Haigh’s daughter, is exonerated. The judge made a point of delivering his verdict in open court – and hopefully it will receive as much publicity as the original defamatory allegations.

“The first judge found that allegations of sexual abuse made against the father of a young child were not just untrue but manufactured by the child’s mother, who then caused her daughter to repeat them.  Because the mother was wholly incapable of fostering a relationship between her daughter and the child’s father, refused to accept the judge’s findings and continued to assert that the father was a paedophile, a second judge found that her mother had caused the child significant harm.

Sir Nicholas Wall said:

“I have come to the conclusion that … I should … give a public judgment in which I explain, having read all the papers in the case, that I have reached the same conclusion as the two previous judges. These proceedings have had a serious effect on the life of the father and have threatened the stability of the child. Her mother’s actions are wholly contrary to her interests.  The father is entitled to tell the world, and the world is entitled to know, that he is not a paedophile, that he has not sexually abused his daughter and that the allegations made against him are false.“

Ms Elizabeth Watson, the writer of many of the e-mails I have received, has been jailed for nine months. The Judge said of her:

The child’s mother is wholly unable to accept the court’s verdict and, with the misguided assistance of Elizabeth Watson has unlawfully and in breach of court orders put into the public domain via e-mail and the internet a series of unwarranted and scandalous allegations about the father and others.  She has repeated the untruth that the father is a paedophile and – without a scintilla of evidence – has attacked the good faith of all the professionals who had had any contact with the case”.

Elizabeth Watson had circulated emails which ‘named and shamed’ Mr Tune as a paedophile and bitterly criticised social workers who she termed ‘social disservices’ or ‘abductees who snatched children’ and ‘tortured innocent parents’ as ‘nationwide child snatching reaching epidemic proportions’.

Sir Nicholas considered his option of ruling that Elizabeth Watson was ‘mentally ill’ but concluded that he had ‘no alternative’ but to jail her for nine months for being in contempt of court.

‘You knew exactly what you were doing – writing the most aggressive, intimidating emails calling everyone in sight ‘corrupt’. You wrote on the court orders you were sent.’

He added: ‘She knew precisely what she was doing and thought herself above the law. That will not be tolerated.’

Those who continue to repeat unfounded accusations of that heinous crime of paedophilia via the Internet would be well advised to take note.

I see that John Hemming is once again under fire for ‘abusing parliamentary privilege’ by so much as mentioning Ms Haigh – it is important to remember that he did not champion her underlying allegations, but merely her right to speak to parliamentarians of matters of concern to her. That is right and proper.

Peddling opinion as to who is alleged to be a paedophile without benefit of factual evidence is not. Nor does it have anything at all to do with ‘free speech’.

Hyperventilating Over Paedophilia is a post from: Anna Raccoon

‘Dead Children are made of Gold’ is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Over 100 years ago, the Rev. LaFayette Moore, a Baptist minister, gave up parish work and entered the business world with a pill cutter and gelatin coating machine. He rented one room over a carpenter shop. Money was short, and he obtained much of his raw materials on credit from Miller’s drug store in New York. Oscar Bell, a clerk in that store, vouched for Rev. Moore, subsequently borrowing to pay Rev. Moore’s outstanding bill.

Oscar had faith in the Rev. Moore, for Moore had acquired a recipe for curing the diarrhoea and ulcers that afflicted so many businessmen in New York.

That is to condense a very long story, but you get the idea.

You may wonder what this has to do with Internet anonymity. Surely anything to do with the Internet is new age, decades beyond snake oil salesmen in 19^th century New York. Clean, digital, to say nothing of lawless and anarchic? The province of the young; a new world that they scamper over untrammelled?

Not at all, it is the long arm of the Rev. Moore that is reaching out, this time to create a little trouser staining of its own, and a fair few ulcers. How ironic that its victims may well be gulping down the product that belongs to their very persecutor.

40 years ago, the descendants of Rev Moore were the proud possessors of the patent for Furazolidone. A drug that was believed to be an effective cure for the bacterium that causes stomach ulcers, a bacterium that lives in the stomach of over half the world’s population.

(I can feel the ground trembling as Leg-Iron rises up in rage at this simplistic description of his specialist subject, thank-God its early morning, he won’t be around for several hours to vent his wrath!)

It was a valuable patent, and the owners were more than annoyed that ‘somebody’ was bringing unlicensed supplies of the drug into Britain, trouble was, they didn’t know who.

They knew a man who did though.

The Customs and Excise man who supervised the ships that carried the contraband Furazolidone. He wouldn’t tell them who was shipping the stuff, saying he had a duty of confidentiality to them.

In some jurisdictions, France amongst them, there is a legal requirement to come to the assistance of, say, a drowning man. There is no such requirement in Britain. You don’t have to save life unless you also have a duty of care towards the person – parent/child, employer/employee etc. yet the descendants of Rev Moore were able to rely on settled law that you can be compelled to assist a person who is suffering damage to their property.

The House of Lords ruled that the Customs and Excise, although an innocent party in all this, held information relating to unlawful conduct that was damaging the property – the patent, in this case – that belonged to someone who was suffering damage to that property. The principle of ‘discovery’ goes back to the Rev. Moore’s time, ironically for a cure for diarrhoea, in a case called Orr v Diaper. They had to hand over the information. It became known as the Norwich Pharmacal order.

It is that same order which has been developed to force innocent parties – Wikimedia, Facebook, Google, to hand over the names and addresses of internet users when there is a ‘reasonable basis’ to believe that they have been instrumental facilitators in assisting ‘damage’ to property, including the barely tangible – intellectual property, reputation, or privacy.

To read the main stream media you would believe that the mechanism by which Twitter and Internet providers are currently ‘being forced’ to hand over the names and addresses of the ‘forum furies’ and sick individuals who imagine the Internet is some sort of lawless society where they can freely defame, and conjure up their sick theories, is ‘new law’, part and parcel of the ‘out of control’ judiciary, making law to suit themselves, without reference to parliament. A breech of their ‘human right’ to ‘free speech’.

It isn’t, it is a 19^th C remedy, applied to 21st C technology.

The forum furies and snake oil salesmen currently nursing letters from Mssrs Carter-Ruck are free to muse on the origins of their problems as they down their ulcer cures and fret that they might stain their trousers….

On Internet Anonymity and Snake Oil Salesmen. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Just a few short days ago, Madeleine McCann’s twin brother and sister celebrated their sixth birthday. They are probably reading by now, although not yet old enough to play ‘research the family history’ on Google – yet.

When they do, they will find that their missing older sister has possibly overtaken Princess Diana as the most talked about blonde on planet earth. Even when 25 year old Joanna Yeates was still officially missing, their big sister’s name was invoked in the media coverage; no missing person case is complete without the obligatory mention of Madeleine and photograph of those winsome eyes staring out at you.

It won’t make easy reading for them. Many entries on Google lead you to forums where those who enjoy such speculation are pleased to tease apart the finer details of the gruesome end they firmly, adamantly even, believe that she met. They are no better informed than those who speculate that she is alive and well and living as a fairy princess.

‘Our Maddie’ has become public property, the ultimate game of ‘McCluedo’, an inanimate object to be photo shopped, dissected, lied about, verbally abused, fantasised over, yeah, and even drooled over.

Overnight, another in the long line of personalities who claim to have ‘inside knowledge’ as to her fate has come forward. An exclusive in The Sun claims that Angolan born Marcelino Italiano is acquainted with a gang of Algarve-based Portuguese paedophiles that he is sure are responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance. The story will attract the familiar barrage of comments. You can only feel sympathy for the McCann twins when they are old enough to read and understand what is said about their family.

The Sun exclusive – not Marcelino – invoked the memory of the Casa Pia paedophile ring, and this in turn has set off a flurry of comment in the Portuguese based forums who have worked tirelessly to reassure their readers that whatever Madeleine’s fate, it had nothing to do with anyone Portuguese, and therefore the only remaining answer was that either her parents or their friends were responsible for her disappearance.

The Portuguese are sensitive, as surely the British would be, to any notion that there might be paedophiles in their midst, and publicly are quite convinced that if there are – they must be British imports. They pump out endless stories detailing the fact that the British asked that suspected British paedophiles who might have been present on the Algarve when she went missing weren’t to be named – and many on that list were not convicted, merely suspected – when the case files were published, but are strangely defensive when there is mention of the Portuguese citizens who were convicted in the Casa Pia tragedy – ‘they aren’t really guilty, they are appealing you know’…..

As it happens, yet another paedophile was finally apprehended – though for how long, we will see – in Australia yesterday. 73 British born Roderick Robinson was bailed to appear on child sex charges in Australia 10 years ago. He fled the country to New Zealand. There he was arrested for further offences – and bailed once more. He fled New Zealand for the Algarve on a false passport, and CEOPS and the UK border police, working in conjunction with the Portuguese police, traced him there and returned him to Australia. Once again he was given bail, this time he fled to Thailand. On Tuesday he was arrested in Thailand, and the Thai authorities are insisting that as a British citizen, he be returned to the UK. He will be met at Heathrow, put on the sex offenders list, and “As part of the notification requirements of this, he will be required to inform police of any travel plans”. One can only hope that he does dutifully inform the authorities if he is planning to flee once more and give them his forwarding address – but the signs don’t look too hopeful!

In Devon, police are investigating a paedophile ring involving some 20 children. A young man has been arrested.

No country is immune to this epidemic, but is it really an epidemic? Incest has always existed, the Bible felt it necessary to address the issue, but paedophilia is a lot more than incest, it is the ultimate ‘stranger-danger’. Is it more prevalent than it was 50 years ago, or have we become more sensitive to the issue, more ready to involve the authorities?

Another thought occurs to me, even more contentious. Could it be that in the past 30 years as women have become more strident, matured younger, felt more confident in their own sexual requirements, and at ever younger ages – that men who are less confident, sexually inadequate even, have been emboldened to look at children below the age of consent in their quest for an innocent female who will not mock their fumbling performance?

I am not in any way defending paedophilia, before any knees jerk in that direction, merely enquiring whether the rest of society has played any part in this apparent epidemic. I was in a children’s home 50 years ago – many of the girls there had been the victims of incest, but I cannot remember a single girl who it was alleged had been the victim of ‘stranger paedophilia’. Something has changed – any suggestions as to what?

Midwinter Maddie-ness. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Cadaver dogs perform a grim but essential task – locating the presence of human remains, even minute particles of human remains. In America, the cadaver dogs first achieved national recognition in the aftermath of 9/11, helping to locate partial remains and thus confirm the death of missing people.

These dogs have gained a considerable fan-club, and it is oft quoted that ‘the dogs don’t lie’. Maybe they don’t have the capacity to lie – but neither can they always be relied upon to tell the truth.

In America a four month search for a missing woman came to a grisly end when her husband spotted her foot sticking out of a pile of rubbish in their home – a house that the police and specialised cadaver dogs had searched several times already.

Dogs that are apparently able to search the rubble of a 110 story building for minute particles of human remains, had failed to locate an entire body hidden beneath a mound of rubbish inside the house pictured above. Apparently food, clothing and decomposing garbage had hindered their accuracy.

The ‘infallible’ sniffer dogs…. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

This afternoon Sandra Barr published an ‘Important Press Release’ from Robert Green to his Facebook group members.

As with so much of the information which emanates from Robert Green, a kernel of half truths have been nurtured into a forest of conspiracy theories and defamatory lies.

Since those defamatory lies concern myself and have now been broadcast to his entire 27.000 strong Face book group, I intend to set the record straight.

The purpose of disseminating the information concerning myself was, we are told, a retaliatory action because of something neither carried out by me nor endorsed by me. The Press Release is clearly preceded by the words ‘no action required at present’. The clear threat implied by those words is that the information contained in the press release will be needed if members of the group are required to take ‘direct action’ in the future.

I will not be intimidated by these tactics. No blogger should be.

Unlike Mr Green, I have always linked to my sources in order that readers are able to make up their own minds regarding my articles. I will continue to do so.

The passage in the Press Release concerning myself is as follows:

In another strange coincidence on the same day, Mr Greg Lance-Watkins, owner of the self-appointed Hollie Greig website, has now been exposed as a UK government agent, hence his rant of today, June 4th http://www.facebook.com/l/e4bc4;stolenkids-hollie.blogspot.com/ see pdf. Both he and Anna Raccoon, fellow blogger (real name Susanne Nundy nee Blackie), worked at the Court of Protection see email address susannenundy@chcourtofprotection.co.uk view “Links to Old Scholars’ Pages” http://www.facebook.com/l/e4bc4;oldscholars.info/links.htm Is this a coincidence? Also ex-employee of the Lord Provosts Dept. Does she come from Scotland? Another coincidence? We don’t think so. Since Anne and Hollie’s address has been divulged on http://www.facebook.com/l/e4bc4;stolenkids-hollie.blogspot.com/ by Mr Watkins, it seems fair that we should reciprocate the compliment. Susanne Nundy nee Blackie (Anna Raccoon), now lives at
Rue de l’Ancienne Poste,
Issigeac 24560
France.

Seriatim:

I am not aware that Mr Lance-Watkins ever worked at the Court of Protection. Certainly not in my time. To the best of my knowledge this claim is untrue – though Mr Lance Watkins would be best placed to confirm or deny this.

No. I did not work ‘at’ the Court of Protection. I was Lord Chancellor’s Visitor for Wales. I worked in conjunction with the Court of Protection and the Public Trustee.

No. The e-mail address given is not and has never been a genuine e-mail address. It has been lifted from the mailing list of a school I attended almost 50 years ago and still contains the spam avoidance filters.

No. I am not an ex-employee of the Lord Provosts Dept. I have never worked for any government office in Scotland, nor in any other public or private capacity in Scotland.  The legal system in Scotland is not the same as the legal system in England.

Yes, my grandfather was Scottish.

Yes. Susanne Nundy is my correct name – however my maiden name is Cameron-Blackie.

No, that is not my current address although it is a property that I did own.

Already since this press release has gone out I have received e-mails such as this:

[…]Also, I am coming to believe theres support from your quarter and Watkins quarter in deriding this case because YOU ARE PAEDOPHILES YOURSELVES OR HAVE KNOWLEDGE WHILST WORKING FOR THE COURT OF PROTECTION WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC ABOUT PAEDOPHILIA WHICH HAS BEEN KEPT QUIET AND OUT OF PUBLIC SCRUTINY, meaning that paedophiles were exposed AND NOT PROSECUTED.[…]

First of all the Court of Protection has no conceivable connection with the prosecution of paedophiles. It was until long after I left concerned solely with the financial and legal affairs of those with limited mental capacity.

Secondly, the person responsible for this malicious intimidation may or may not be aware that I live in France and blog under an assumed name as a result of having been stalked and assaulted by a particularly dangerous and violent mental patient. The consequences of even the limited amount of correct information which has been published about me tonight are profound, and for that reason both the English and the French police have had to be involved. Their response has been magnificent and heart warming. This in turn may well have consequences beyond my control. They are totally the responsibility of the person who decided to hit back at Mr Lance-Watkins by ‘outing’ me.

The Internet has become a dangerous world. As a Libertarian I do not wish to see it regulated. I trust all honest bloggers will join with me in condemning those who give the government sound reason to want to impose restrictions on what can and cannot be said on the Internet.

Comments are open, however two of the most notorious members of Mr Green’s Facebook group will find that their comments go directly into moderation and I will only release those comments which contain no libel or defamation.

Intimidation only works if the victim is prepared to be intimidated.

I am not.

http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/robert-green/

http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/robert-green-hollie-greig/

Intimidation and Coercion. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

I apologise for the length of this piece. There are a lot of facts to be laid out.

I would also ask before you tell me that I have left this or that fact out that you refer to my original blog post on the subject – I have tried not to repeat myself here.

Comments will be open, especially if you have factual evidence to bring forward. If you come here just to hiss and spit, and treat me to some of the vile and venal abuse that has been bandied around in this case – unless it is especially witty or has some intrinsic merit, it will be deleted.

I have written before on the subject of Robert Green and his ‘campaign’ on behalf of a young female sufferer of Down’s syndrome who, he maintains, was the subject of a vicious and sustained series of rapes by both men and women.

What interests me about this particular case is the fundamental mismatch between, on one hand, the passionate campaign that has raged on Face-book and, on the other, the embarrassingly sparse ‘evidence’ on which it was based.

It has taken me some time to peel away the layers of ‘internet truth’ and to arrive at the essential facts, such as they are, that do exist.

Anne, the girl’s Mother, originally contacted two men to publicise her story. ALL the information that is on the Internet, ALL the firmly held beliefs, ALL the ‘alleged’ evidence, was given to those two men, and emerged into the world via the various means THEY took to publicise the case.

Neither of them was Robert Green. He came into the story later.

Let us take Stuart Usher first. Stuart, a part time Hot Dog salesman runs an organisation called Scotland against Crooked Lawyers and has done for some 10 years or so. It has a website www.sacl.org

Stuart has ‘named and shamed’ some 140 lawyers and judges based in Scotland on his web site regarding a variety of alleged offences, including paedophilia, who, in his opinion, are ‘crooked’. He cites, with great pride, that none of them have ever thought to sue him. Whether this is because his accusations are accurate and they are hanging their head in shame, or because they felt that giving more publicity to wild accusations whilst suing a Hot Dog salesman was possibly counter productive is a matter of opinion.

Still, Stuart Usher was a first hand confident of Anne, the girl’s Mother, and presumably had access to concrete evidence of her claims. Unfortunately, Stuart has decided to withdraw from the case ‘to spend more time with his family’ – as you will find, we end up with a list of people who were ‘in at the beginning’ who have mysteriously melted away.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Stuart Usher to Paul Drockton

Paul
I have had increased pressure from my family recently with regard to my efforts to help other people. In a nutshell they feel the time has come for me to divert my efforts to support them instead. I have agreed to this as they have suffered badly over the years and I now feel the time has come for me to concentrate my efforts on them.

Mr Usher did not disappear before recording a radio interview which is available on the Internet.

You require patience and dedication to listen to it all the way through. The amateur ‘disc jockey’ suffers interminable technical problems for the first half hour, and after three quarters of an hour of attempting to make sense of Mr Usher’s words, the disc jockey returns to playing some excruciating hard rock…..I nearly lost the will to live, but I was determined to learn at first hand precisely what the claims were.

Mr Usher would tell you that Anne’s daughter was repeatedly raped at the ‘house of Sheriff B’s sister, Evelyn’. This is casualty number one in the search for truth. Sheriff B simply does not have a sister Evelyn. He may well have a dog called Evelyn, a cat even, but no sister.

These things matter when you are basing a campaign on your right to publicise ‘the truth’.

Mr Usher would also tell you that Anne and her daughter were forced to ‘flee Scotland’ following the ‘murder’ of her brother Roy. Roy had apparently been ‘repeatedly battered over the head with an axe handle’ before being pushed into a car which was set alight in an arson attack.

Now one of the claims which circulates on the Internet is that this unfortunate death was ‘hushed up’ by the authorities, and described as ‘suicide’ when it was murder – the implication is usually that Roy was murdered as a direct result of Anne having laid information with the police a few days earlier. I have repeatedly been told that it was never investigated. Not true.

Whatever the Police investigation amounted to, there was an in depth investigation by an experienced journalist. One Mark Daly of the BBC. Mark Daly is the journalist who according to Robert Green was ‘bullied by his bosses’ into dropping a proposed documentary about the case. This version alternates with one which says that he was silenced by a ‘D’ notice. Mark spoke out on the Face Book group.

“I have been involved in some of the biggest investigations into corruption, racism, murder and child sex abusers broadcast in the UK over the past ten years of my career, and the suggestion that I would be complicit in a cover up of important journalism is insulting and deeply misguided.”
“After careful consideration some time later (before we had filmed anything), we, the programme team, decided we couldn’t proceed with the story. It became clear that the wider allegations that were being made would be impossible to verify, and indeed we had concerns about the veracity of many of them. On that basis, we made a professional decision not to proceed. As journalists, we are not in a position to pick and choose which allegations we want to run or believe, and the vast majority of these allegations were, in our opinion, un-provable. There are few more serious allegations one can make about a person than to call them a paedophile, and for that reason, the evidence has to be of the utmost quality. And in this case, I’m afraid it fell far short of this hurdle.”

You can hear Mark Daly answering his critics here.

Exit Mark Daly – but not before he had helpfully asked for and received from Grampian Police, the autopsy report for Roy Grieg. There the evidence that Roy had been ‘repeatedly battered about the head with an axe handle’ so frequently cited, melts away to become a ‘contusion’ on his head. Contusion being the medical term for a common or garden bruise. The ‘broken ribs’ may well owe more to the strenuous efforts – efforts which earned him a medal from the Royal Humane Society – of a passing oil rig worker who pulled Roy Grieg from his car during a filthy storm and in the middle of the night and gave him CPR in an effort to save his life.

Mark Daly had also uncovered something which directly contradicted Anne’s claim that there could be no truth in the Coroner’s verdict that her brother committed suicide – for he had ‘no reason to commit suicide’. Daly discovered that Roy Greig had been suspended from his job amid allegations of a substantial sum of money missing. He had recently travelled to Glasgow to obtain legal assistance in respect of these matters from his union.

These things matter when you are basing a campaign on your right to publicise ‘the truth’.

Two witnesses down, but fear not. We have more. Next up is Greg Lance-Watkins. Lance-Watkins has spent some 30 years campaigning on behalf of abused children. He runs an ‘enabling’ web site, which helps those children to have their own web site and tell their story under the umbrella of his main web site.   Anne approached him and asked him to publicise her daughter’s story. She explained that she had no internet skills and it was agreed that he would operate the http://stolenkids-hollie.blogspot.com and write it as though it was Hollie telling her own story. Those who claim that Hollie is a competent witness for any trial, and cite as evidence the fact that she ‘willingly’ tells her ‘own’ story on her ‘own’ web site, please take note. Mr Lance-Watkins freely admits that the words are his, using information coming from Hollie’s Mother. In his lay opinion, Hollie has a mental age of under 10.

Lance-Watkins has been in this ‘business’ for many years, and he has had some success at obtaining justice for abused children. He is, like Mark Daly, the journalist, fully aware of the necessity for concrete evidence and strongly advised Anne not to court publicity until such time as they had gathered whatever documentary evidence they could. He was assured it would be forthcoming and was available.

Eventually he managed to gain sight of the autopsy report which was cited as evidence that Anne’s brother had been wickedly battered about the head and murdered. He was slightly non plussed to discover that this only amounted to a ‘contusion’ and even more non plussed to learn of the evidence regarding a possible crime in Roy’s workplace, despite having repeatedly pressed Anne for possible reasons for Roy’s suicide.

Then he pressed Anne for the mysterious medical evidence that showed how Hollie had been brutally anally and vaginally raped for 10 years by this paedophile ring. She finally gave him this document.

It is difficult to read, it is a scanned version of a very bad folded photocopy. With diligence and Photoshop’s enlargement facilities, it is possible however.

Hollie was born at the end of 1979 and here we have a Doctor informing another Doctor that at some time prior to 1992 (the date of the letter) Hollie’s parents had jointly enquired as to the need for contraception for their daughter. It was alleged that Hollie had been making sexual overtures to other children within her special needs facility.

I do not propose to further discuss Hollie’s medical affairs; she is entitled to a darn sight more privacy than she has received so far. Suffice it to say, that those who rest their case that Hollie was ‘sexually abused’ in any form on the supposed ‘medical evidence’, would be well advised to read carefully this letter that Anne Greig claims is the evidence. You will not find one iota of evidence from the Doctor who had intimately examined her that this was so. What you will find is that at one point in her life, Hollie had suffered from a minor yet common ailment which can be transmitted sexually – though that is by no means the only way in which you can acquire it.

One could put this paucity of substantive evidence down to yet another example of the authorities ‘covering up’ the abuse of Hollie – except that this is the very document on which Anne Greig rests her case.

Lance-Watkins now reluctantly admits that he is in the embarrassing position of having been ‘duped’ . He has not precisely joined the ranks of those who have walked away from the story, he is too much of a professional for that, however, he has retired to the sidelines and thrown out an open invitation to the thousands of members of ‘Holly’s Army’ who are fighting for ‘Justice for Hollie’ to step forward with any concrete evidence before he puts his reputation at risk any more.

Predictably he has been roundly abused by all concerned for this. The myth and fallacy that abounds on the Internet is too deeply entrenched for anyone to take cautious heed of the man who spoke for Holly ceasing to speak for Holly – it is ‘obvious’ that he is part of the conspiracy protecting these mythical government figures, either that or he has been ‘bought off’ by strange figures from MI5. The truth that he is no more prepared to put his reputation on the line without evidence than was Mark Daly is too bitter a pill for them to swallow.

Which leaves us with the Facebook Group. The home base of Holly’s 27,000 strong army. Or does it?

For you see Paul Phillips and his girlfriend Plum, who set up that Facebook Group and urged supporters to publicise this horrendous story so successfully – well they too have retired from the fray ‘to spend more time with their family’ – as has Tom George from ScotsVInjustice, another man with lots of experience in these cases who sadly doesn’t have a family, but still feels he can do something more with his time.

The Facebook Group was closed down, but not before some horrendous mudslinging as the original publicists of the story withdrew one by one. I have never before seen such venal and vindictive commentators.

I have come across many people over the past year whilst being heavily involved in Hollie’s case – some who are sincere and genuine people and others who have obvious ulterior motives and should really question why they became involved and whose interests they were really trying to further. I would like to state publicly here that everything stated by Pabs and Plum above is all factual and I regard them both as sincere and genuine people whose motives in Hollie’s case, like mine, were purely altruistic and their detractors should be thoroughly ashamed to have denounced them in the very malicious way they have. They are both good human beings and simply did not deserve the vilification that has spewed forth their way over recent days and weeks.

I have other very serious, sad and tragic cases I am vigorously pursuing presently against the authorities in Edinburgh and, yes, Aberdeen too and I am committed to fulfilling my obligations to the people concerned. I hope my rapidly declining health does not negate me having to pass these cases on to others to help with and I can see some kind of satisfactory resolution for the individuals concerned.

Tom
Edinburgh
ScotsVInjustice@aol.com

So far we have lost the medical evidence of horrendous sexual abuse, lost the medical evidence that Anne’s brother was murdered, lost the experienced campaigners against paedophilia that we started off with, shed several experienced journalists along the way – what are we left with?

We have Robert Green, would be journalist and broadcaster, who wishes to publicise the names of the people he says that Hollie says abused her, some of who like Sheriff B’s sister, simply don’t exist. We have Paul Drockton, broadcasting from somewhere several thousand miles away having never met any of the people involved. We have a newspaper in Palestine still prepared to print these allegations against British government figures – oh and we have a new Facebook group containing all the people who would far rather believe that there is a conspiracy here, than to face the fact that all the people who started this campaign have now faded away into the shadows – awaiting something more concrete than the wild accusations thrown around by a woman who has been tormented by grief and difficulties in life.

Fortunately, we also have the figure of Paula Morris in Hollie’s home town of Shrewsbury, a sensible Social Worker, who is currently looking into the welfare of this deeply vulnerable young woman and whether she is capable of making an informed decision as to whether she should be paraded on radio and Internet as the poster girl for the hysterical Hollie’s Army.

There is considerable sexual abuse of young women (and men) with Down’s syndrome. It is an entrenched problem. It is invariably carried out by those who have easy access to these young people. Fathers, brothers, uncles, both real and phoney, bus drivers, care attendants. In some rare cases, and they are rare compared to the bulk of disgracefully mundane cases of sexual abuse, they will include figures from other walks of life. Yes, even Judges, and policemen.

What Hollie’s Army have succeeded in doing is gaining wide spread recognition of the apparent ‘fact’ – without any evidence – that paedophilia is part and parcel of a government conspiracy, rather than an event which is all around you every day, next door to you even. That it is a celebrity vice. That may please their desire for publicity. It does nothing for the thousands of Down’s Children who need to be protected.

Perhaps all 27,000 of Holly’s Army might care to get themselves CRB checked – those of them who are able to pass such a check, for sure there will be paedophiles amongst these groups – where else will they find constant discussions of the finer points of sexual abuse? And when they have passed their checks, they might care to volunteer to help protect these deeply vulnerable individuals. They will find it most rewarding.

Perhaps a tad boring compared to the glamour of demanding the right to libel most of the Scottish political establishment on the basis of zero evidence and wild accusations.

Robert Green – Hollie Greig is a post from: Anna Raccoon

I was so enraged by this case yesterday that my mind shut down. It literally would not countenance covering the subject and retreated instead into comforting thoughts of the innocent few days we had spent at Oléron .

I refer, of course, to the stupendously misjudged prosecution of two children for the technical attempted rape of another child. I say technical attempted rape for good reason, for any ‘attempted’ sexual activity with a child delights in the legal terms of rape and attempted rape when forced through the unforgiving funnel of the legal system, even when that activity is carried out by another child.

There can be few of us, if we are honest with ourselves, who did not undergo that rite of passage at a tender age – discovering how different our bodies were, and which bits were supposed to go where. Behind the bike sheds, in the back seat of the school bus, or, as in this case, the local park. It used to earn you a cuff round the ear and a lecture on the birds and the bees; latterly it became known as ‘inappropriate behaviour’. Now, even with the ghastly triumvirate of Eagles, Baird and Harman removed from their pole position of dehumanising, defeminising and victimising all women, the CPS carry on their evil creed and label two children ‘child sex offenders’.

They had no choice, of course, for the legacy of the Human Rights Act is that where there is a victim, there must be a villain.

Did we have a victim? Oh, but yes! Here we have an eight year old girl who claims to have had ‘sex’. Too young to give informed consent to sexual activity, she automatically legally became a ‘rape victim’. The legal brain must then turn to finding a villain.

Do we have a villain? Oh, but yes, two of them. No matter that they are but children themselves, the legal process must grind its ugly way forward.

The legal armies marshal behind their champions.

The victim is given a Teddy Bear to clutch whilst she gives evidence, a bottle of lemonade by her side to signify that her childish needs are being cared for. Sat in an oversized chair to emphasise her childlike proportions. Does she habitually clutch a Teddy Bear? We are not told, but it would seem a strangely childish accoutrement for a child that is allowed to roam the parks alone with her scooter.

The villains have their props too, a Mother sat beside each of them – not a Father, the defence do not want any reminders of the beastly forceful nature of the male race. No, a Mother it must be, to emphasise that they are but children given to childish pranks themselves.

Now with the stage set, the barristers can begin their set pieces, the cross examination – what’s this? The victim is not sure she was raped? No matter, we can fall back on the ‘attempted rape’ charge. This is what we are handsomely paid to do.

NSPCC lawyer Barbara Esam said:

“Research has shown that many young witnesses don’t understand the questions they are asked under cross-examination so we believe a pre-recorded interview – with the help of an intermediary in appropriate cases – to be a much better option.

The prosecution said:

‘The questions were loaded. It would be easy, and it was, to make a child of eight feel intimidated and not sure what to do and to agree with the person in a position of authority asking the questions.

The judge remarked that she looked exhausted at the end, when she began to answer ‘yeah’ to most of the questions. He failed to point out that the wise eight year old says ‘yeah’ to any question posed by an adult, since a refusal often leads to a clip round the ear. It’s called conditioning.

The CPS say that they ‘have a duty’ to prosecute in the public interest – where was the public interest in the lengthy questioning, statement gathering, medical evidence gathering, and court room ‘trauma’ to which this young girl was subjected? Can there be any young person in her immediate neighbourhood, male or female, who is not now aware that if you take her scooter away from her she will drop her knickers? Is she now enabled to stand up for herself in life, to parry any suggestion that she should have sex with any young man who demands it – or is she now thoroughly conditioned as a victim, who must submit and then go through the humiliation of yet another court case? Where is her dignity and self respect? Her privacy?

As for the two ‘villains’, they are now labelled as ‘sex offenders’, worse, ‘child sex offenders’, a label that will affect them throughout their life, will direct their future employment, or more probably non-employment; at ten years old? Remember, a sex offence is one of those that remain on your record long after any other criminal record is expunged.

When they are unlikely to fully comprehend the meaning of sex, never mind the legal technicality of rape. In the bravado world of teenage boyhood, is that not more likely to become a badge of office rather than a mark of shame? Give a dog a bad name, and he is hardly likely to care over much whether the next girl has signed a witnessed informed consent form before he presses his priapic body against hers.

This was the most outrageous, inappropriate use of the legal system. The direct result of the current fashion for dovetailing every situation into one of victim and villain.

The statement by the CPS outside the courtroom was the most depressing of all:

‘We hope that the jury’s verdict today can provide the young girl and her family with some comfort after these difficult events.’

The ‘difficult event’ was that occasioned by the CPS decision to prosecute; where will they stop now? The age of criminal responsibility has only recently been dropped from 14 to 10. Will they now press for it to be made 7, or 5, or 3? Can we expect the next four year old to be thrown out of nursery school for calling his friend a ‘nigger lover’ when he prefers to play marbles with young Winston instead of himself, to be charged? Will the full majesty of the law make an utter ass of itself prosecuting him for a ‘hate crime’?

Dear God, did I really spend the sixties without the padded bra which would have enabled the world to tell front from back, so that we could drive young girls back into the medieval world of feudal victimhood?

Tell me it isn’t so.

?

Abuse of Process. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Madeleine McCann would be seven years old today. All across Britain there are other little girls celebrating their seventh birthday – and it is a matter of supreme indifference to all except those related to them.

Not Madeleine though, for she, unwittingly, belongs to all of us.

She had no say in her celebrity. It was foisted upon her young shoulders; by her parents, by a willing media, by the pyjamahadeen.

Over the course of the past three years, she has shifted from being the essential icon for missing children everywhere, to being the badge of office for the Righteous on both sides of the ‘free speech’ debate. No newspaper article touching on libel is complete without a mention of ‘Our Madeleine’.

Today, on her birthday, a thousand blogs and forums will fire into life – this one too – with their version of the truth as handed down in the great Internet scrolls.

“I read it somewhere – I agreed with it – Therefore it is the truth”

It is the mantra of our age. An age when we dismiss the Holy scriptures from myriad faiths – “written a 100 years after he died – he wasn’t there, how can he know” “Hearsay” “I can point you in the direction of something that says the complete opposite” “We have no proof” – and yet we cling, fanatically, to anything written on the Internet.

“There is someone out there in cyberspace, I know not who they really are, but they have written that with which I agree, verily I shall follow them. It is written therefore it shall be repeated; and any attempt to stop me repeating it shall be dismissed as censorship. I demand the right to repeat my ‘truth’ as found on the Internet.”

And yet, and yet – it is only ‘my’ truth that shall be repeated. A conflicting opinion must be squashed, vilified, removed from the Internet. Its espouser silenced, fired by their employer, hunted down, identified, exposed, and yeah ducked in the village pond – if they float we shall know we were right and burn them at the stake.

For free speech on the Internet is not a universal right, it is only for those who hold the ‘truth’, the Internet ‘truth’, the ‘truth’ that they read somewhere.

‘Our Madeleine’ has spawned a thousand forums adorned with her image, the mysterious child who vanished. They fight, as did the medieval crusaders, under banners that proclaim their allegiance.  The abduction. The murder. The neglect. They hold prayer meetings; they read from their cut and pasted versions of the Holy truth, the edited versions of the Internet ‘case files’. The half truths, the speculation, the gossip, the discarded theories, of a botched investigation in progress. Halted prematurely. Halted before Madeleine’s fate was discovered.

She will go down in history, will Madeleine. In 100 years, nay in 500 years, there will still be groups of people gathering late at night to practise McCluedo, the ancient art of gathering scraps of information, translated from the Portuguese, into Spanish, into English and back again, losing a little, gaining a little, each time, and held proudly aloft as evidence of the wickedness of those who believe an alternative version.

Madeleine is not the icon of missing children, nor is she the standard bearer for free speech; she is the spirit of our age. The ephemeral ghost of the lost art of allowing an alternative opinion to be voiced.

Ancient man gave us the Bible because we needed something to believe in, something to fight over.  Something to feel righteous in supporting. Something to feel righteous in rejecting. A reason to kill and maim, torture and torment, bludgeon and silence, those who rejected our ‘truth’. Now we have the Internet Scrolls.

Happy Birthday Madeleine. It is surely only a matter of time before May 12^th becomes a Bank Holiday. Madeleine Day. When excited children open their Madeleine presents; and exhausted Mothers cook the annual Madeleine feast. When entire families gather in their chosen sub-forum and dutifully intone ‘Our Madeleine, who art in…….we don’t actually know’, and the collection plate is handed round to support the bandwidth of the High Priests of our version of the truth.

It is surely only a matter of time, too, before someone is killed in the name of ‘Our Madeleine’.

McCluedo – a Righteous game for all the family. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Good Lord – there are some interesting candidates standing for election in the Cambridge area alongside Old Holborn.

One who particularly raised my eyebrows is Helene Davies-Green who is standing for UKIP in South Cambridgeshire.

Possibly, no probably, no, emphatically, not a name that would be instantly familiar to you – unless you had taken a close interest in the Madeleine McCann case.

Her description in the list of candidates maintained by the local newspaper wouldn’t alarm the horses, but for those who have followed the McCann case closely, it is a name redolent of behaviour unbecoming a future legislator.

Helene Davies-Green, 62, is a married mother-of-three who lives in Bar Hill. She also has three stepsons. She was educated at Exeter College of Art, works as a clinical coder at Hinchingbrooke Hospital, and has served on Bar Hill parish council. Her interests range from field mycology and fell-walking to litter picking and motorcycling. She said: “Public money should be properly accounted for, and all political decisions should be made in public, unlike those of the EU Commission. As an MP, I would always be answerable to my constituents.” She added her Christian faith would influence her decisions.

A little background on Helene Davies-Green for you.

She and her husband Granville form part of the grandly named ‘Madeleine Foundation’ alongside failed solicitor Anthony Bennett. A man who was himself once briefly, very, very briefly, well actually just three whole days, listed on the Electoral Commission’s web site as leader of Veritas. He has in the past been a member of the Labour Party and UKIP as well as the aforementioned Veritas. In addition to his variable commitment to an assortment of political parties, he has also pursued a number of private prosecutions.

Well known for his homophobic stance, which he relates to his strong ‘Christian faith’ – indeed he was barred from holding  office in the UKIP party after he circulated a pamphlet labelling the prophet Muhammad a paedophile, he went on to take a strong interest in the Michael Barrymore/Stuart Lubbock  case. He brought an unsuccessful prosecution against Michael Barrymore  and wrote a book claiming that Lubbock had died as a result of a violent attack of a homosexual nature which Barrymore had concealed.

Whether he left the Labour Party, and later UKIP, voluntarily or not is not known, but he then emerged as a founder member of Veritas with the strangely hued Robert Kilroy-silk, but his past association with Ian Anderson, ex-chairman of the National Front came back to haunt him.

Bennett then went on to latch onto the Madeleine McCann case, and unsuccessfully tried to bring a private prosecution – once again – against the parents in the English courts. It was ruled that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear his case.

Helene Davies-Green and her husband Grenville have been two of his staunchest supporters. This photograph of her, Grenville and Debbie Butler was taken when they stopped for refreshments after an arduous day at Oxford University when they tried  to disturb a lecture given by Clarence Mitshell, part of the Conservative Party’s campaign team. Presumably donations to their foudnation didn’t run to anything more than dinner at a burgher bar.

An earlier staunch supporter, Debbie Butler, fled the organisation amid claims that Bennett had not accounted for donations correctly. The claims and counterclaims have occupied an inordinate amount of police time between Essex Police and Kent Police, and are still not fully resolved.

Debbie Butler, in turn, fell out with the organisation after some particularly lurid stories appeared in the National newspapers labelling her a stalker after she and her cohorts – Bennett, and the two Davies-Green’s took it upon themselves to push leaflets through the letter boxes of the McCann’s neighbours in Rothley publicising their foundations views that Madeleine was not abducted and that her parents were to blame for her ‘death’.

Curiously, Ms Davies’Green’s candidacy listing states ‘litter picking’ as one of her hobbies. Litter dropping might have been more representative.

A UKIP spokesman, quoted in the Sun newspaper, said last night: “Whilst having every sympathy with the McCanns and their predicament, UKIP believes in the freedom of speech.”

We all believe in freedom of speech, but not in freedom of libellous speech, a view obviously shared by Mssrs Carter-Ruck who have been in regular communication with the grandiose ‘Madeleine Foundation’ on this very matter, binding the foundation, of which Ms Davies-Green is a committee member not to further publicise their libellous claims.

The Sun newspaper goes on to describe Ms Davies-Green as a ‘folk-singer’ – it sounds positively cuddly, doesn’t it?

Let’s try a folk-singer who has strong links to homophobic men with strong links to ex-members of the National Front. Not nearly so cuddly is it?

I was amused to find this question on Ms Davies-Green’s election web site.

Question … ‘What are your views on harassing the parents of a missing child? Would you support a law that makes that illegal? ‘

said … ‘Dear Ms Island I believe the present legislation with regard to harassment is adequate. If, however, you have any specific proposals for amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or to any other Act of Parliament, please let me know. After the election, you could also submit any such proposals to your local MP. By the way, are you in South Cambridgeshire?

Nice swerve Ms Davies-Green, but I suspect that is not the last you will have heard of that question.

Joining the dots… is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin.

Once upon a time, we relied on the story teller for both news and education; we called him a troubadour. He travelled from market place to market place, alternately educating, advising, and passing on gossip.

Around the beginning of the 19^th C, the role of story teller changed from being one of educating the adults, to instilling moral values in children.

He was always an instrument of the power in the land – in those days the royal court.

Hans Christian Anderson, 205 years ‘old’ today, which is what has prompted these thoughts, was paid a pension by the Danish King Frederick VI.

Today, the honoured story teller has undergone another metamorphosis, and is now back to ‘educating’ the adults; the reteller of stories for children struggle to earn a living; the pensions of today are paid not by the Royal court, but by the true power in the land, the major political parties.

We call them spin-meisters, our modern word for fairy story tellers.

There have been many words written on Derek Draper, Damian McBride and Charlie Whelan, and little light has fallen on their opposite numbers in the Conservative Party.

Andy Coulson is popularly bashed in the left wing Blogosphere for his involvement in the ‘bugging scandal’, but I shall leave that aside for the moment, and just concentrate on his past legal employment – that of producing the News of the World.

Given 60 million inhabitants in the United Kingdom, do you not find it strange that the one man, the ‘best man for the job’ of communications director, that David Cameron could find, was not an experienced technical writer with a strong record of combing through impenetrable economic treatise, or a man who had spent a life time studying scientific data and rendering it communicable, but a man who specialised in sugar coating vague gossip and tittle tattle innuendo and turning it into pages of what passes for information in a newspaper?

We are in the middle of a global banking crisis, struggling to understand whether climate change is a looming disaster or a grab for world domination by the oil cartel, and yet the man the Conservative Party have put in charge of communicating their policies to the masses is an expert in valueless ‘distraction news’.

If he really was the ‘right man’ amongst 60 million people that tells me that David Cameron is not interested in whether we vote for the right people and the right policies, he is only interested in entertaining us, keeping us quiet, getting us through the election period with as little introvertive thinking as possible.

Who else has he appointed?

Well, famously, there is Clarence Mitchell. A man who took Kate and Gerry McCann’s explanation for the disappearance of their daughter to the status of ‘fact’ – or what passes for fact in our libel writ fearing newspapers these days – in the face of a mountain of circumstantial evidence that demanded at least an objective critique; and by a combination of liberal use of said libel lawyers, emotive and well placed news conferences, and an obsessive monitoring of social media and blog land, has ensured that only those based abroad dare to effectively question the ‘party line’ of his clients.

If he really was the ‘right man’ amongst 60 million people that tells me that David Cameron is not interested in whether we have an open debate on the serious issues that the country faces, he is only interested in monitoring the blogs and forums to ensure that if anyone steps out of line in questioning his party policy, it will have been effectively monitored, there will be a letter from Carter-Ruck, and a hastily convened and emotive news conference.

These then, are the modern troubadours, the fairy tale spinners, which the political court has appointed to entertain us.

Charlie Whelan, Peter Mandleson, Derek Draper, Damian McBride, Alistair Campbell, Andy Coulson, Clarence Mitchell…..

I don’t trust any one of them.

We should not be voting for any party based on their fairy tales, we should be voting for individuals, based on our local knowledge of them; they will be our representatives in parliament, and the prevailing view of the majority of them will have the controlling interest in shaping our future.

Fairy tales are for children. Grown ups should seek out the independent candidates – and if you are voting in the Cambridge area, you can vote for an independent maverick – Old Holborn – who will be applying an independent mind to each and every question that might face him if he is a successful candidate, not toeing a party line enforced by spin-meisters.

Fairy Tales and Spin-Meisters. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

A paedophile who repeatedly raped an eleven year old child was today described by the main steam media as having ‘had a fling‘ with the child. The url leading to the story describes the rapes as ‘romps’. Items given to the child were described as a ‘reward’. In other media outlets, the repeated rape is described as ‘a ten month affair‘.

There is a double standard being applied here by a media which normally delights in using words like ‘lure’  or ‘groomed’, ‘sexually abused’ and definitely ‘rape’ – which is the legal term where the child is under 13 years of age and the perpetrator over 18.

The reason for the double standards appears to be that in this case the perpetrator was a woman, and the victim an eleven year old boy. I can only assume that for some in the media, this fulfils a fantasy that they have not lost since their childhood – that of the ‘obliging’ older woman.

Reports gloat over the fact that the offence was committed almost 200 times – you can almost hear the beery, leery glee of the journalists as they chuckle ‘lucky beggar’ – and ‘he got a pair of trainers thrown in too’.

Reporting such as this is part of the demonisation of the white English male – the rape of children is against the law, is morally wrong; it doesn’t vary in its repugnance depending on whether it is carried out by men or women.

36-year old Angela Sullivan was jailed today for nine years – a considerably lower sentence than the 18 years given to Martyn Palmer who was sentenced last month for attempting to groom a 15 year old girl.

From which we must deduce that if you are a woman, raping a child 200 times is only half as bad as a man attempting to persuade a girl to have sex a few months before her 16th birthday.

The hypocrisy behind these double standards does nothing to protect children.

Paedophilia Double Standards is a post from: Anna Raccoon

A frisson of excitement ran through the blogosphere late last night as news of Robert Green’s arrest in Aberdeen spread.

The facts as they first appeared seemed electrifying, a legal advisor prevented from going about his business by a Scottish legal conspiracy? Grist to the blogosphere mill.

A little digging reveals more froth on this than a pint of Guinness.

Robert Green is not a legal advisor. He is a lay advisor, journalist and broadcaster.  I have about my person a copy of a letter he wrote in January 2010 where he admits that he is a lay advisor when addressing the Mental Welfare Commission of Scotland. Copies of that letter freely available to anyone who is interested.

Robert Green, although a Shropshire man, is intending to stand as an independent candidate in the Aberdeen South ward in the forthcoming General Election. As a journalist and broadcaster he would be more than aware of the value of a good ‘story’. Indeed, he has been touring the country giving a series of talks regarding his research into sexual abuse in the Aberdeen area. He should be more than aware of the laws of defamation and would definitely be aware of the difference between the standard of proof required in a civil case and that required for a criminal case.

Mr Green was allegedly intending to hand out pamphlets that claimed there was a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on the part of some very senior legal and political figures in Scotland.

There are those who say that in the interests of ‘free speech’ anybody should be allowed to say anything they please at whatever time, based on whatever idea pops into their head. I don’t subscribe to that view, nor does the oft quoted Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. ‘Freedom of Expression’ as it is known there is a qualified right. Qualified as John Stuart Mills always intended, by the harm principle. You don’t have the right to defame, or harm, individuals by your free speech.

Child abuse is possibly the most incendiary accusation that can be levelled against anyone today, and particular care should be taken before making it. Robert Green was allegedly about to level that accusation against senior political and legal figures. We should perhaps look at the basis on which he felt entitled to make that accusation before assuming a conspiracy to silence him.

The young woman involved – and I don’t propose to name her, for reasons I will explain later – has claimed for several years that she was sexually abused by a group of men connected to her father in Aberdeen. The medical evidence apparently corroborates this, and I have no difficulty in believing her. It is a sad fact of life that many girls with Down’s syndrome are both tactile and highly sexed, an unfortunate combination in highly vulnerable individuals, and as such they are disproportionately represented amongst the tragic list of those who suffer child abuse. I don’t make those comments in any sense of ‘excusing’ the men involved, it is for adults to make responsible decisions, but in sad acceptance of the fact that yes, she probably was abused. In my experience, parents of children with Down’s syndrome are only too aware of the dangers, and take extra precautions to make sure that their children are safe.

The allegations of abuse were investigated by Grampian police, at a senior level, and the young woman received compensation from the criminal injuries fund following evidence from a Grampain detective inspector who described her as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”. She received £13,500 which is the tariff payment for such cases. The evidential test is on the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities.  There is no requirement for corroboration.

The fact that she received compensation ‘as an innocent victim of violence’ under circumstances where no corroboration was required, cannot, under any stretch of the imagination be taken as proof that her allegations as to who had carried out the abuse would form credible or reliable evidence to carry out a criminal prosecution. The fact that Grampian police are not undertaking any prosecution of individuals named by this girl, where they have neither corroboration nor reliable evidence cannot be taken to be a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – it is rather more a conspiracy to assert the course of justice.

Do you really want a society where you can find yourself labelled as a child abuser and forced to stand trial in many months time on the basis of an uncorroborated claim from a witness who can only tell the truth ‘to the best of her (diminished) ability’ – is that really the cause you are championing when you demand that those she has named stand trial?

Because there is another factor in this saga. Her Mother. The woman that Robert Green says was:

“assaulted and rendered unconscious by a group of assailants as she was about to enter her home. When she came to she found herself in Aberdeen Mental Institution and informed she was mentally ill”

We know from Robert Green’s letter to the Scottish Mental Welfare Commission that the Mother was ‘sectioned’ in common parlance. We do not know what metal illness she may or may not have suffered from, nor who these alleged ‘assailants’ were – though we can surmise that they were in fact a community psychiatric nurse and a doctor, we can surmise that because otherwise the receiving officer at the mental institution would also have to be part of this ‘conspiracy’ if he were to receive a comatose tranquilised patient from any old gang of assailants. Since this occurred some 10 years before Robert Green wrote to the mental health commission we can also surmise that despite his alarmist language which reaches out to every tin foil hat reader in the universe that there may indeed have been sound reasons fro tranquilising her for the good of her health. I am not saying that this is so, merely that we actually have no evidence to the contrary.

So, we have a vulnerable mentally disabled girl who has almost certainly been sexually abused, by her Father amonst others, we have a Mother who has suffered such mental trauma at being made aware of her ex-husbands deeds that we are reasonably sure that she was taken to a mental hospital for her own good – and we have a prospective parliamentary candidate who thinks nothing of picking these two up and driving them half way across the country – from Cheshire to Bristol – in order to publicise his belief that the police should be prosecuting senior political figures, without corroborating evidence, of a heinous crime.

Enter the Scottish legal system, who in their ham fisted way, decide to start issuing injunctions to everyone who even dares to mention the matter – thus ensuring that the blogosphere is alive with pictures and identifying details of a young girls sexual life.

There are many unedifying figures hanging around child abuse cases. This is not the first case to attract faux legal advisers with a brief case full of pamphlets who spend their days and nights on-line discussing the intricacies of the latest child abuse. Nor will Robert Green be the first such who fancied his chances as a politician.

I don’t intend to name the young woman because if there is anything which comes close to the obscenity of child abuse, it is the abuse of a child which takes place when the self righteous decide to use her name and face to publicise themselves in the name of a variation of ‘free speech’ that they would be the first to decry if it were turned on them or in the name of a demand for criminal prosecution on such flimsy evidence – not that she was abused, but who had abused her, note – that the blogosphere would implode if there was any suggestion that Robert Green’s prosecution should rest on such evidence.

Grrrrr!

Robert Green is a post from: Anna Raccoon

This is Robert Aistrop. Robert Archibald Aistrop, to be precise. Take a good look, you weren’t supposed to see what he looked like.

You need to know what he looks like, especially if you have a daughter, a young daughter, somewhere in the age range of say, four years old to eight years old.

Robert is quite partial to young girls of that age. He admitted 21 separate offences of rape and sexual assault against girls of that age this week. Two counts of rape, two attempted rapes, ten indecent assaults, six sexual assaults, and one assault by penetration.

You might think that naming and shaming him for the better protection of the young girls of Hull was uppermost in the judges mind. It wasn’t. His concern was that Robert should be able to hide behind anonymity. His learned worshipful legalistic honour Judge John Swanson decided that section 39 of the Children and Young Persons  Act was just the ticket to conceal Robert’s name and face behind.

It took a young local female court reporter to point out to another Judge, David Tremberg that Robert was neither a child nor a young person, and challenge the order.

The filthy old git is 68 years old.

All due praise to Nicky Harley of the Hull Daily Mail for standing up to this oafish decision.

Judicial Lunacy. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Britain’s intelligence services raised the threat level of a terrorist attack from ‘substantial’ to ‘severe’ last week, meaning an attack was considered to be ‘highly likely’ – despite the Home Secretary saying that there was ‘no intelligence’ to suggest that an attack was imminent!

Who to believe? The Joint Intelligence Service or the Home Secretary? Is Alan Johnson presiding over a ‘sexed-down’ dossier?

One way to gauge the level of the threat is to look at Police activity, for surely if an attack is ‘highly likely’ then all available officers will be out monitoring likely terrorist suspects?

It seems they are not. In fact it seems they have an inordinate amount of time on their hands, and are filling that time by acting as part-time referees in the routine pig-tail pulling and bra-snapping that goes on in Internet forum land.

I am not referring to true libel. The on-line environment is not a legal vacuum, in general if something is illegal off-line, then it is illegal on-line.The Laws of Defamation apply on-line and there are conditional fee agreements available to anyone who has a reasonable chance of proving that they have been defamed. The notion that Libel law is only for the rich is oversimplistic. However that is civil law, and there is a growing trend for those who have had their pigtails pulled, to run to the police and use criminal law to silence their critics.

The Protection of Harassment Act of 1997 was intended to protect individuals from stalking,  it stemmed from a Private Members Bill, but the eventual drafting of the Act brought warnings from even the legal firm that helped in the drafting that it had gone further than they intended.

“At the time we advised those we assisted in the parliamentary process that the law against harassment was far more outreaching than our original intention.”

It is not just the Harassment Act which is causing concern, but also the Telecommunications Act.

Gavin Brant was charged under this act after he wrote of a local policeman in a postscript on his blog – “P.S. – D.C. Lloyd, God help your new-born baby”. This was perceived as ‘grossly offensive and menacing’ and he was find £150 with £354 costs for those few words.

In the past week, Stephen Sizer, a fairly controversial character who has encountered considerable opposition for his views on line, has revealed that for the fourth time in recent months, he had a meeting with West Yorkshire CID officers, who in turn had been instructed by Surrey Police, in order to explain his hurt feelings at length.

“Two officers from West Yorkshire Police visited the author of the blog concerned. The feelings of the complainant were relayed to the author who voluntarily removed the blog. No formal action was taken.”

That is a fair number of officers spending time filling in reports, travelling to and from the homes of complainant and ‘defendant’, two police forces involved.

In the McCann saga, a falling out between the Chairman and Secretary of a fund raising group dedicated to opposing the McCann’s version of the events whereby Madeleine disappeared, has equally consumed a considerable amount of police time in Kent and Essex as allegations tottered back and forth over the Internet.

” A Detective Sergeant called at home on Sunday at 9.15am and was here till 2.00pm taking a long statement with 11 exhibits [...] he will speak to Det Chief Inspector *** this week when decisions will be taken on what further action, if any to take.”

4 3/4 hours of police time, not counting the report filling or the case meeting with a Detective Chief Inspector!

These are not isolated incidents. Oliver Kamm amusingly describes the several hours he spent being interviewed at Abingdon Police Station after he had ‘hurt the feelings’ of another on-line commentator. No charges resulted.

It is not just private individuals who are running along to PC Plod when they find themselves distressed by the Internet, our old friend Vera Baird is at it too – she is upset at comments (not about her, it is other old slappers that are being spoken of) on a site dedicated to rating prostitutes, and she ‘wants to close that down as quickly as possible’.  Are those comments illegal? Nope, but that is not deterring her.

When Alan Murray faced charges of intimidation in cyberspace he said:

‘During my testimony in court I said I was only trying to criticise those in power or those that would speak for us. That right has been upheld by the judge’s decision. If the judge had ruled against me, then every blogger would have been vulnerable to charges of intimidation because those at the end of their criticism could claim they were being picked upon. A very bad precedent would have been set,’.

He went on to say that he intended to sue the police for the time and resources they had wasted on investigating his case – does anybody know if he succeeded? I have been unable to find out. At the time of this case it was said that:

‘The case of the Belfast blogger is as important as Undercover Mosque in terms of protecting the right to criticise and the freedom to inquire. The judgment in Belfast protects the blogosphere’s freedom and it means the rich, powerful or any interest groups, whoever they are, can’t bully bloggers using the law. As for the police in this case, they and the law should not be intervening in legitimate debate.’

That was in 2008 – what has happened in the meantime that gives the police so much time to listen to the whining and whinnying of those who may not have a case for civil defamation but appear to have found an ready ear in their local police station to listen and console their hurt feelings?

Meanwhile, who is hunting the terrorists?

Her Majesty’s Blog Referees….. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Today, the Righteous Brothers will march on the Portuguese capital of Lisbon, banners proudly held aloft, ready to do battle in the endless contest between the clash of two fundamental rights: the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation. They will demand that the Lisbon court treat the opposing arguments as being mutually exclusive and declare an outright victor.

The Portuguese court is due to begin the libel trial of a former senior detective who published a book alleging that Madeleine McCann died inside her parents’ apartment. Kate and Gerry McCann launched the legal action against Goncalo Amaral after he accused them of being complicit in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.

In his book Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie, published in July 2008, Mr Amaral claimed that Madeleine died in her family’s holiday flat on the night she disappeared and questioned the McCanns’ account that she was abducted. A Portuguese judge granted an injunction in September last year banning further sale or publication of the book. The former policeman was also prohibited from repeating his claims about Madeleine or her parents.

The McCann’s will argue that the constant repetition of the opinions of the former coordinator of the investigation leaves them unfairly under suspicion – despite the decision of the Prosecutor General that there was insufficient evidence to bring any charges – and undermines the search for Madeleine. They reject any suggestion that Madeleine is dead and continue to investigate the probability of an abduction.

The value underlying the right to reputation that has most resonance is human dignity, while the value that is most apposite to freedom of expression in this context is the argument that free speech is integral to democracy. The argument from democracy emphasizes that speech on matters of public interest should receive greater protection than private speech.

The lawyers will deliver emotive speeches invoking inalienable Human Rights; lacunae in the law will have been pored over late at night, competing cases examined in minute detail. It will be an intellectual tussle, between competing adults. Another army of adults will gather raucously outside the court room; the intransigent adults of the late night Internet chat rooms, who have long since drawn up their battle lines and staked claim to their righteous views, in what has become an obscene on-line version of Cluedo – “it was Kate wot did it, in the conservatory, with the lead pipe”- versus those who believe the parents to be benighted victims of a vicious assault on their reputation. It is hard to believe at times that they are all adults, but adults they are.

However, although the adversarial nature of law scarcely admits the fact, there is another participant, a Silent Voice, but a no less  important voice for that, clinging to the legs of both parties, who will, God willing, turn this race for righteous victory into a three-legged race.

It is the oft-forgotten, unheard, voice of Madeleine.

Those who clamour noisily behind the banner of Free Speech and demand that ‘their man’ has the right to publish his theories based on his part-participation in the still incomplete investigation into her disappearance forget that if he is wrong, if his views that she is dead, bolstered by his apparent ‘professional expertise’, gain ascendancy, they are effectively curtailing the search for a small child who may be enduring unimaginable terrors. Madeleine’s ‘right’ to the benefit of doubt as to whether she is rescuable or beyond hope trump any adult right to Freedom of Speech for me.

Those who clamour noisily behind the banner of Reputation and Human Dignity and demand that ‘their champions’ deserve the right to a ‘clean reputation’ until a court can prove conclusively that they were complicit in her demise, forget that, if they are wrong, they are effectively curtailing the search for justice for a small child who cannot speak for herself. Madeleine’s ‘right’ to the benefit of doubt as to whether she was the victim of infanticide or not, trump any adult right to Reputation and Human Dignity for me.

The only outcome of this case which would appease my belief that this clash of the adult Titans is riding roughshod over Madeleine’s rights, would be one which ruled that a former policeman cannot use that platform to promote his personal beliefs as though they were facts, and former arguidos cannot sue for compensation for damaged reputations until such time as Madeleine is found.

Dead or Alive.

Live commentary from the Lisbon courtroom can be found HERE.

The Silent Voice. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

What an impenetrably murky world politicians inhabit.

What layers of subterfuge, and incomprehensibly skewed morals, do they juggle as they haggle and negotiate their way to decisions allegedly for the good of us all?

How do they sleep at night, weighed down by the knowledge of the lives they have tossed into an abyss, whilst ‘the hand of destiny was on their shoulder’?

Today the architects of the Northern Ireland peace process are under the spotlight, following the showing of an extraordinary documentary last night on Ulster TV.

The story is a sadly familiar one.  A young girl comes forward, supported by her Mother, to detail the sexual abuse which her Father has inflicted on her since the age of four years old. It is the detail of how this information was handled by the authorities which have taken this from the realms of ‘sad but not unheard of’ to plumbing new depths of treachery, cynicism, and a desire for political power that surpasses all accepted boundaries of justice.

The young girl was Aine Tyrell, not a name that would make you sit up and pay attention, until you learn that she is Gerry Adams’ niece. The abuser was her Father, Gerry Adams’ brother, Liam. Gerry Adams has known of this abuse for many years, 20 in fact, and never doubted that it was true, but it was only last night, secure at his pinnacle of political power, that he felt able to speak out and support his niece.

How many other people knew of the horror endured by this young girl. Many. Despicably, treacherously, deceptively, duplicity, almost too many to name. I will do my best. They don’t deserve to hide in the shadows.

Let us start with Gerry Adams – although we will move further up the troughing chain than that eventually. Mr Adams has now made a statement urging his brother to hand himself in to face the 23 charges that were laid in respect of this abuse over a year ago. A little tardy of him you might think, and the cynical of you will have noted that he made his statement, via his political press office, not personally,  in the knowledge that a documentary billed as being about ‘a strong republican family and allegations of sexual abuse’ was going to be shown that very night. In the ‘street of shame’ it is known as ‘spoiling the exclsuive’.  Some might say that for such a pivotal figure to come out and publicly say that ‘they support the victim and believe her’ was a courageous stance. It might have been 20 years ago, today it could also be held as an attempt to influence justice. Long memories go back to Mary Harney’s injudicious remarks at the time of the Haughey trial which effectively kept him out of jail.

Liam Adams is reported to be living in the Donegal area; is it any coincidence that Gerry Adams appears to have lost control of the dissident IRA. If the information as to his probable whereabouts is available to me, then one presumes that the yobs of West Belfast or Kev 408 are similarly Internet savvy. Was this an attempt to get Liam safely ensconced in the arms of the Northern Ireland Police Serve before the ‘boyos’ caught up with him?

What had been Gerry Adams’ actions prior to Aine waiving her right to anonymity?

Speaking exclusively to UTV’s Insight special, Aine Tyrell claimed that Gerry Adams had known about the abuse for twenty years.
She has also talked about her need to go public with her story, and explained disillusionment and frustration at how she feels let down by the police, social services, the church and her uncle Gerry.
Eventually, Aine wrote her mother a letter telling her about the abuse. After informing social services and the police, she told her uncle, one of the most recognisable republicans in Northern Ireland, Gerry Adams.
Mr Adams attempted to make his brother answer for his alleged crimes, by trying to set up a meeting between Aine and her father so she could put the accusations to him directly.
Aine said she attended the “rushed” meetings with her uncle on her own, but said the tone changed as Mr Adams started to defend his brother.
“I got my eyes opened when I was going to the meetings. It was turning into Liam was the victim.”
However, Aine believes she was let down by her uncle.
“I ended up saying look do you know what it is, you have failed me again, when twenty years later I’ve asked you to do one thing.”, she said.

He expected this 14 year old girl to confront her Father in front of her other adult relatives, with all the emotional and psychological confusion and pain inherent in that – and how many of the IRA hierarchy were present? Asking a young rape victim to confront her rapist is going to help her precisely how?

Eileen Calder of the Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Centre in Belfst has been a strong supporter of the Republican movement, even though not a Republican herself, but she has been quoted in the Dail in the past about the IRAs ‘internal’ methods of justice.

a serious case in Northern Ireland where a woman was raped, then intimidated to the point that it was perfectly clear that she should not attempt to report this and that if she did report it, other things might happen. Other instances of intimidation including threats from the IRA against individuals were brought by representatives of Community Restorative Justice. This is appalling. In another case, Eileen Calder described how a woman who was raped was brought face to face with the rapist in a room, which the victim described as worse than the rape itself.

Given the traditional reaction in working class republican areas to crimes of this nature, it is curious that Liam Adams still had the physical ability to get himself to Donegal other than by stretcher – what deals were done behind closed doors that allowed him safe passage?

There is an allegation that the prominent Belfast priest Fr. Aidan Troy was brought in – by Liam Adams himself to ‘mediate’ on his behalf, rather than allow him to face criminal prosecution. Last night Fr Troy issued a statement denying claims he had attempted to persuade Ms Tyrell, aged 36, from proceeding with a case. Perhaps not, but how helpful would a Belfast priest be in encouraging a prosecution for child abuse? They have history in these matters.

One of the more worrying aspects of this affair is that Aine and her Mother did go to the RUC in 1987 – a time when this would have been seen as the ultimate betrayal of the family, and the party and how much courage must it have taken to walk through the RUC doors in those days of ‘the troubles’. Did the RUC ever seek to arrest Liam Adams, question him, involve Social Services? It appears not. Not even a quiet but helpful word in the ear of Ian Paisley. What would have been the motive for the RUC to stay their hand? Quite extraordinary when you consider how many Northern Ireland Policemen have gone on to become experts in child abuse.

According to the programme, her mother said the RUC seemed “more interested in recruiting her as an informer than dealing with Aine’s abusing father”.

Medical tests were taken and social services were also informed and documentary evidence of these tests and contacts are still on file, according to Insight.

The programme also reported that at the time because so few in the local nationalist community recognised the legitimacy of the RUC that “under pressure” Ms Tyrell didn’t proceed with the case. The statements, however, are still on file and Ms Tyrell believes these can be used to prove her allegations against her father.

A peace process was underway. Arresting the brother of the Sein Fein leader would have been seen as ‘dirty tricks’ and possibly resulted in far more deaths on the troubled streets. Besides, the information gleaned on Liam Adams would have been very useful to the authorities on both sides of the border. A negotiating tool even. What pressure was brought to bear on Gerry Adams over this matter? Could the British Security Services have possibly not been aware of this? Inconceivable. Was Tony Blair told?

The final straw for Aine Tyrell was not the knowledge that her father subsequently got a job as a youth worker in the Muirhevamore Community Centre.  A job working with impressionable children in one of the most deprived areas of Dundalk, a man known to be a senior henchman of the Provisional movement – if his own niece had not managed to take action against him, how many other children would have felt helpless to complain of his advances?

No, the final straw for Aine came 20 years ago with  the knowledge that her father had remarried, and begun a new family.

She said: “When I realised that there was a new child in the house, a wee girl in the house, living there permanently, I was devastated, absolutely devastated.

“I couldn’t motivate myself to go to school. I couldn’t motivate myself for anything, youth clubs, I mean it all stopped. I didn’t go out, I didn’t eat, everything was a fight. I had the school board coming to the door to see why I wasn’t going, and my mummy was like: ‘She’s grieving over her Granny, she hasn’t ate in weeks. I had her to the doctors, she’s went down to six stone, she’s just loads of things’ and all that’.”

The situation came to a head after an argument between mother and daughter and it was at this stage that Mrs Tyrell spoke out for the first time.

Mrs Campbell said: “Next thing I heard somebody at my living room door and there was a wee letter, was an envelope pushed underneath the door, and I heard the wee feet running back up the stairs again.

“And I bent down and picked up the envelope. It says: ‘Dear mummy, and this is why I’m like this, my daddy made me sleep with him’. That’s the day my world sort of ended.”

Her daughter added: “That’s exactly what I says. That he was making me sleep with him.”

It is the politicians, the intelligence services, and the church, who have been conspiring to keep this quiet ever since.

They cared nothing for a young girl’s distress.

MPs Brother wanted for Child Abuse. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Not in my wildest dreams did I imagine that my journalistic career would commence with me being the catalyst for the arrest of an international criminal. A man who has outwitted some of the finest investigators and police forces in the world. A man who is alleged to have defrauded at least two of Carter-Ruck’s most protected and news worthy clients– the parents of Madeleine McCann and Trafigura. Kevin Halligen.

As a student studying a Masters degree in Multimedia and Broadcast Journalism at University College Falmouth, my mind might have strayed to such fantasies occasionally, but for me those fantasies have became reality. The last few weeks have been overwhelmingly stressful but at the same time instructive in the ways of the Main Stream Media, and the International forces of Law and Order.

During the summer months of May and June I worked in an exclusive Oxford restaurant called Quod which is directly attached to the Old Bank Hotel on the quintessentially English High Street. Both under the same ownership – Mogford Ltd.

On Sunday 22^nd June I was reading through a number of newspapers, keeping up to date with news and current affairs which is important for my studies. I reached for the Sunday Times and was flicking morosely through the pages searching for a good story to enliven our class on the following Monday. As I turned a page I instantly recognised the photograph of a man – declared wanted by the FBI and the British Police. Fame and fortune beckoned. I knew who it was, more importantly, I knew where he was!

His distinctive face, though aged considerably now, was the man I had known as Richard Hall. A resident in the Old Bank Hotel, where I had worked. Many residents pass through the hotel virtually anonymously, with nothing to commend them to your memory.   However, this man had distinguished himself by his outgoing and arrogant personality. His Anglo-American accent was unique, and his excessive drinking habits would put any British binge-drinking student to shame.

On previous trips back to Oxford to see friends, I had frequented Quod and the Old Bank hotel and been surprised to see ‘Mr Hall’ and his girlfriend still there. He referred to the hotel as Hotel California – claiming he was never going to leave. Remembering this, I was fairly sure he would still be there.

In my innocence, I reacted as any public spirited citizen should do – I got in touch with the Police; I emailed the United States Embassy; I even phoned Crimestoppers on their 0800 number- but nothing happened.

I knew locating this man, and identifying him to the police would be galvanising news if for no other reason than that he was linked into two of the biggest news stories this decade. Madeleine McCann and Trafigura.

When there was still no news on Kevin Halligen’s arrest, I had to assume it wasn’t going to happen , so I got in touch with a number of newspapers who had published stories about Kevin Halligen’s activities. By doing this I hoped that more pressure would be indirectly placed on the British Police to make a move for his arrest.

My gamble paid off. After speaking to the Sun, a broadsheet newspaper, and The Liverpool Echo, Halligen was promptly arrested on the Tuesday evening – and the press had a field day.

I later learned that I was not the only person to contact the police. I understand many people had done previously, although I would say by being the only person to contact the media I was the catalyst that brought about his arrest.

The media had a positive impact in bringing down a man who had conned millions of pounds. I understand that the hotel manager, a man I remember by the name of Ben, had contacted the police as well, but only because of Halligen’s outstanding bill of some £4000. Perhaps if the senior hotel management had been more alert, Halligen would have been arrested earlier. The Old Bank hotel provides a full range of newspapers for its customers. How could it be that nobody else spotted this man sitting at his customary place at the bar whilst reading through the Sunday Times?  His photograph was clear; the man is distinctive and noisily attention grabbing where ever he goes. I strongly suspect any reports to the hotel or the police were brushed aside – neither the authorities nor the hotel were interested until The Sun and its photographer’s arrived on the scene.

Will all this excitement help me build a career as a journalist? Let us look at the evidence.

Thames Valley Police said in a statement: “We arrested a 48-year-old man at the Old Bank Hotel in Oxford. It was a discrepancy over his hotel bill.”

Not much evidence of my attempts to alert them to the presence of an international fraudster there.

The Sun said: Halligen, 48, who also uses the name Richard, was nicked on Tuesday after The Sun traced him to a swish hotel in Oxford.

Hmmn, The Sun traced him?

My fledgling career seems to be in the shade of The Sun. The mention of those magical words, the McCann’s and Trafigura had had the required effect; the forces of Law and Order had crept onto the scene in the wake of the commercial interests of the Canary Wharf behemoths, circulation was up, Halligen was arrested.

I had relied on going back to The Old Bank Hotel to work. I was invited to do so by two managers, confirmed in writing. However, they have decided my employment is ‘no longer required’ since the Halligen saga. I am reluctant to pass any form of judgement on them – I am sure they have valid reasons beyond my next sentence.

I strongly suspect, that by trying to enforce justice through the use of the MSM, albeit that in turn had helped to stop Kevin Halligen con the hotel itself, the Old Bank could not risk re-employing a trainee journalist who had revealed that they were harbouring an international fugitive. What other stories might I uncover in this hotel?

‘Bright lad seeks employment for University holidays, observant, determined, and persistent’.

Any Offers?

© Christopher Winsley

In the Shade of The Sun is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Those of you who know me well, will be aware that I have not been well in recent months.

Thanks to the excellent French medical service, which is second to none, I have undergone a battery of tests in record time, no waiting, no messing, outstanding courtesy and efficiency at every turn. Hopefully they have now arrived at an answer that will see me back to my normal ebullient self in one or two months.

One or two months is a long time in blogland. I am more aware than anyone that my posts recently have lacked sparkle, and been pedestrian. Most days I have struggled to write anything at all. I don’t believe that this blog can stand another two months or so of my lacklustre self. It would survive, but I am too much of a perfectionist to settle for mere survival.

I never intended to run my own blog, I would have been very happy to pen the occasional piece for Anorak, but events overtook me, and I found myself swept along on a tide of ‘no more Anorak’ followed by someone ‘helpfully’ setting up a blog in my name, and ultimately making the decision that – with a couple of others – we would go it alone. The couple of others fell by the wayside, and there I was, running a blog single handed, the very thing I had never intended to do.

‘Anna Raccoon’ has been unbelievably successful, I didn’t even know how to collect ‘stats’ for the first two months, but since I learnt that trick, there have been over half a million page views in the past six months. Thousands of people from all around the world arrive every day to read. I feel honour bound to give them something to read.

I also feel like a hamster on a wheel.

I made the decision initially to go with a self hosted blog, hosted outside of Europe’s draconian libel laws, because I had – through what seemed like a lifetime of moderating Anorak through the ‘McCann wars’ – a continuing interest in the fate of that little girl. I had hoped to provide a platform for reasoned debate on the subject; even a year ago, other fora were dividing into those who felt the parents were saints and should be supported, and those who wished to see them hung drawn and quartered. Those who were so alert to the possibility of libel, and those who were prepared to print anything and everything. I quickly learnt that a ‘middle of the road’ position, open to all opinions, is simply not possible on that subject, you disappear under an avalanche of abusive e-mails from all sides regardless of what you write. I had trolls, I had attempts to hack my site, I had spoof sites set up cruelly lampooning my regular posters, I had some of the most abusive, vitriolic, and disturbing e-mails it has ever been my misfortune to receive. It was a very unhappy period, for no other reason than that I was not prepared to act or write as though I knew the ‘truth’ of the matter – either ‘truth’. For or against.

Eventually I made the decision that I simply would not write of Madeleine any longer, I would turn my attention to other matters that interested me.

I am a Quaker; I am at heart a natural Libertarian, I believe strongly in personal responsibility and self discipline. Not surprising then that I should join and support the Libertarian party. Nor that I should write of politics, UK politics, even though I am personally disenfranchised, and no longer live in the UK, I haven’t stopped being saddened by what has become of a country that I loved very much.

Old Holborn offered me a platform, and I shall always be grateful for his wise counsel, friendship, and support. There is a small part of him that contains one of the sanest minds I know. Guthrum likewise. To say I was slightly surprised by the un-Libertarian instincts of some of my fellow travellers, would be a monumental understatement.

My first post on Old Holborn was roundly, resolutely, robustly, attacked by Stan. My punctuation, my use of apostrophes, my English, was not ‘as prescribed’ by the Libertarian rule book. I had no idea that there was a Libertarian rule book, I had innocently thought that the whole idea of Libertarianism was that we should each do ‘our own thing’ providing we were not hurting anyone else, and were taking responsibility for ourselves. Schmuck that I was. In the weeks that followed, I was again plagued by trolls on the site, Libertarian ones this time, and received a number of e-mails which should not have hurt, they were only words, but hurt they did. I was worthless, valueless, a piece of shit, had no business writing on Old Holborn’s site. So much so that I asked Old Holborn to remove me from his blogroll. I took my e-mail address off my own site.

Not for the first time, I wondered why on earth I was running this blog. It was the support of good friends and loyal posters, many dating from my time at Anorak, that kept me going. I took to writing just what amused me, and amused my friends. Peace reigned once again.

I can no longer remember which came first – Old Holborn inviting me back again, or me deciding to prune my blogroll to just those bloggers whose output I actually read, and those who had been kind enough to support me. A fateful decision, that eventually unleashed a tsunami of vitriol from two well known bloggers who kept up a campaign for many a month of continuous contemptuous articles denigrating me, and claiming I had no right to term myself a Libertarian. Each article would be followed by a series of e-mails from people concerned that I might not have seen the latest missive. I seemed to spend my days trying to find something to write, and also time to answer the semi-continuous e-mails. I probably shouldn’t have graced them with a reply, but that is not my way.

One of the main bones of contention with my new protagonists was that I said I supported Guido ‘totally’. Whilst it is apparently perfectly OK to condemn someone ‘totally’ in the unwritten book of Libertarian rules, supporting them ‘totally’ is anathema.

I do support Guido, he has opened the door through which we all pour out our hearts on a daily basis; though I can assure you, and I have held my tongue for many a month of this subject, that far from me being in some’ cosy country club’ with him and other bloggers, Guido is barely aware of my existence. I gave him many hours of my time and energy moderating for him when he needed it. In return, he has never graced me with so much as a thank-you, has never blog rolled me, has never e-mailed me more than a scant three or four words, as in ‘are you there’ when he needed an extra moderator, has only once commented on my site, a curt ‘correct’ one day, and to add insult to injury, I am completely and utterly banned from his site by his mysterious algorithms which are unable to cope with the word ‘coon’ even when it is cunningly hidden about my name, or concealed in a hyperlink to my name. He has given me two links, one when I became the only blogger to ever have a cabinet minister comment on their site, which I am quite sure he would have handed out to anyone else in the same position, and once when I produced a piece of artwork lauding Heather Brooks at a time when everyone else seemed to have forgotten that without her there would have been no ‘MPs expenses scandal’. For that I have endured months of vitriol which yes, did cause me a lot of unhappiness; there is a real person behind this blog, one that doesn’t enjoy being on the receiving end of a vendetta.

It seems to me that the world of blogging is fuelled by petty jealousies, vitriol, feuds, unsubstantiated allegations, apostrophe police, and a whole host of people who in another age would have been happy twitching their curtains and writing letters in green ink. I have watched in horror as several new forums have descended into a cesspool of hatred and nastiness, and you know what? I got up this morning and decided that I just didn’t have the energy anymore, or the thick skin, to do it any longer.

Why should I? I live in a wondrously idyllic enclave, I have a life outside of this blog that I have ignored for too long.

I spent today clearing a millstream of debris and jetsam, tonight it is flowing clear and fresh, the moorhens are happy, the frogs are leaping, my dog is muddy and exhausted. The world is a better place for my endeavours. Best of all, there will be no snide e-mails to answer, I didn’t have to keep checking on my work to make sure that some mischievous person didn’t post an advertisement for Viagra or unfairly lambast another poster for their opinion. There was no danger of my work suddenly disappearing into the cyber-ether becasue I’d been too tired to press the right button. I shan’t be spending tonight upgrading the site becasue WordPress demanded I did. Tomorrow I shall be out in the winter sunshine clearing the mill pond.

If there is anyone out there with the thick skin required to withstand the brickbats, the tenacity to spend hours tending the site, the desire to write seven days a week, then there is here a ready made site, with a readership of around 3,000 a day, fully paid up until some time in 2011, I would be happy to give it to you. Be my guest. No payment required. E-mail me at annaraccoon@gmail.com and it is all yours. This offer will stay open for one week from today, after that the curtain will come down.

Do with it as you please, but please look after my posters, they are a good hearted bunch, not given to foul mouthed rants, with wit and wisdom aplenty. Were it not for them I should have chucked the towel in long ago.

To those posters, thank-you, thank-you for the laughs we have had along the way, thank-you for your friendship, support, and inspiration. Thank-you for helping me to create something I am truly proud of, I am sorry that I just don’t have the energy to run with it alone any longer.

To the gentleman who repeatedly e-mails me offering to scour my vagina with a wire brush mounted on a Black and Decker – make the most of this week Pal, I shall be crashing that e-mail address at the end of this week.

I do believe that Mr G has my dinner ready once again. Not much longer Mr G, I’m rejoining the human race. I’ll cook next week……..

The Final Curtain. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

The Algarve summer is over, and rather abruptly so.

On Sunday, I was at the beach, enjoying the final days of warm and dry bliss of this long summer of ’09. The water was warm, the sun was shining and a perfect blue sky reminded me of how blessed we are, despite all our difficulties, to live in a region where bikinis and flip flops sell a lot better than umbrellas and coats.

Yesterday, mild showers outside and the socks on my feet clearly stated that much has changed since the weekend.

I’m a summer person. I love the hot, dry weather, the light clothes, the long days and warm nights, the beach, the sand and the sea. I love the red earth of the Algarve, under an endless blue sky. I love the smell of sardines being grilled in the open air, and the taste of the local bread, slightly sour, bringing back fond memories of family holidays in my childhood and youth.

I barely survive the winter. I suffer physically from the cold, and psychologically from the dark. While the rest of the world cheerfully looks forward to Christmas, I shudder at the thought of the longest nights of the year, the coldest and wettest days, the layers of clothes that I wrap around myself to no perceptible avail. I hate socks and overcoats; I detest woollen sweaters and thick corduroy trousers.

The only thing that gets me through winter is the certainty that every single day that I suffer through, brings me closer to the next summer.

The case of Justice for Madeleine McCann has been one long, dark winter for almost two and a half years. No matter what each one of us thinks happened to the little girl that vanished from Praia da Luz in May 2007, what seems certain is that a crime has been committed, and it remains unsolved to this day.

A child has disappeared without a trace, the world was summoned to search for her, and despite publicity from Alaska to Australia and a hefty reward being offered, absolutely no useful information about her whereabouts has emerged. None of the campaigns that her parents launched, none of the private detective teams that were hired, none of the worldwide appeals, nothing produced any results whatsoever. Neither did, according to the prosecutor who archived the case, the work of the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária.

Meanwhile, on internet forums and blogs, so-called ‘pros’ and ‘antis’ brandish arguments in favour of basically two theories: abduction versus parental involvement. The child’s parents have endorsed the former; a Civil Court judge in Lisbon has practically outlawed the latter, until further notice.

Those who defend the abduction theory basically rest their arguments on the apparent impossibility of two English tourists, in an unfamiliar area without a vehicle and without known local contacts, being able to make a body disappear without a trace, within a reduced time frame, and while maintaining a perfectly normal demeanour.

Those who favour the theory of parental involvement, found their arguments on the apparent impossibility of someone abducting a child from within a holiday apartment, without leaving a trace of his or her presence, and in the midst of a flurry of movements to and from the apartment block, by the McCanns and their group of friends.

A considerable number of unusual indications, like the dogs’ detection of cadaver and blood odour in the apartment and the parents’ hire car, inconsistencies in the witness statements, and the parents’ and their friends’ reluctance in cooperating with the police, in diligences that have the potential of clarifying many aspects of the case and eliminating them as suspects, have not contributed to make the discussion more peaceful, or the case clearer.

Was Madeleine McCann abducted from apartment 5A at the Ocean Club, on the night of May 3, 2007?

Let us presume that she was.

Let us presume that Madeleine was taken, just like that. For a moment, let us forget about open windows, jemmied shutters, unlocked doors. Forget about the dogs, the DNA tests, the incongruous witness statements. Forget about 48 unanswered questions, men carrying children through the night, spokespeople and lawyers and image consultants.

Imagine, for a moment, that all that had been reported, was that a child was safely sleeping in her bed at around 9 p.m., and that one hour later, she had vanished without a trace.

If that had been the only thing that had ever been said about this, would you be more prepared to accept that Madeleine was abducted? I think that you would. It would still sound like a very strange thing to happen, an incredibly rare occurrence, especially to a child that had been in that location for only 5 days, and on holidays. However, you would set it aside as a very unfortunate case, one in a zillion, a mystery that you would probably accept would never be solved.

Is she dead, is she alive? If Madeleine is alive, she is being held captive against her will. No matter how well her captor treats her, she is not where she naturally belongs. Society in general, and the authorities of two countries in particular, have a moral, not to mention a legal obligation to search for her. It is beyond incomprehensible that the Portuguese police have actively stopped investigating the possible abduction of Madeleine McCann.

It is disputable whether or not the Public Ministry acted correctly in shelving the investigation of the theory of parental involvement. But it surely cannot be defended that the Public Ministry acted correctly in dropping the investigation into a potential abduction, literally abandoning a possibly suffering captive child to her misfortune. In the same manner, there should be an English law enforcement agency investigating the abduction of an English subject, especially when it has to be taken into consideration that she could have been targeted while still on British soil.

The very special circumstances of Madeleine’s possible abduction have to consider the hypothesis of Portugal having contributed with nothing to this crime except the few square meters of land where it took place.

Just as incomprehensible as the fact that the Portuguese authorities dropped the case as quickly as possible, is the fact that no British agency picked it up as swiftly as it could.

There is, after all, a potential abduction victim being held captive and possibly subject to all sorts of abuse, day after day.

The only people who seem to worry about this lack of initiative and sheer urgency, seem to be the many members of Madeleine forums and blogs, ‘pros’ and ‘antis’ strangely united in one common purpose, which is to solve the crime – because a crime has been perpetrated. The child’s parents make public appearances, now and then, stating that the public needs to remain aware that she is missing – as if we could forget – and that their daughter needs to be found.

How exactly that is going to happen, by employing two private detectives with no known record of expertise in missing children’s cases, instead of getting the very best specialists from legitimate police forces on the case, is something that I, and apparently a considerable part of the public, fail to understand.

Madeleine McCann, victim of abduction, alive and suffering, held captive somewhere on the same planet where my children live in happiness and freedom, needs to be rescued, and that has to happen now, not within months or years. Her parents should not have to be making plans to visit Luz, the place where they held their daughter for the last time, at some point during the coming months, alone. They should be making plans to hold her again soon, they should be making plans to return to Luz with her, next summer, to complete the holidays that were so cruelly interrupted.

Because there will be a summer after the winter.

Reprinted by kind permission of Astro.

Lest we forget….. is a post from: Anna Raccoon