Robert Green thrown in jail for 1 year/HOLLIE GREIG

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:23 pm

PostTue Dec 11, 2012 7:53 pm » by TruthPrevails


Cornbread714 wrote:i think it's fair to have both sides presented.

Even if you are here on an obvious agenda, which is, technically, against the rules. Tread carefully, though - for one thing, I see absolutely no reason to even suggest that any of the previous content regarding this case should be removed.

That being said, you may present evidence supporting your case, but don't attack long-time members and don't expect special treatment.

And don't even begin to speculate about the possibility of your being able to have the mention of Hollie Greig's case be deleted from this site.

That ain't gonna happen.

I promise.


I realise having an agenda is against the rules here but someone has to answer the lies which are being posted on this forum. Innocent people have been slated on here and other places for no good reason.

I have attacked nobody thus far and I am not a troll as some of the posters have suggested. As for mention of the Hollie campaign other forums have been persuaded to remove the lies from their sites after taking a good look at all the evidence we have presented.
No one should have to prove they are innocent.




Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 5259
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:36 pm

PostTue Dec 11, 2012 8:17 pm » by Tuor10


Cornbread714 wrote:
HollieGreigHoaxGroup wrote:I cannot help but wonder if given enough time that we would manage to convince admin here to remove all Hollie Greig related content from your site.


Good luck with that.

You're beginning to piss me off. You don't control the debate and you don't dictate what is presented here.


I think the person you are replying too has show his or her true colours, and the reason they have decided to post on this site.

They want all material out of the public domain.

The intellectual stock of the nation has depreciated. No wonder the intelligence services are shit now-days.

Super Moderator
Online
User avatar
Posts: 19548
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:20 am
Location: underneath the circumstances

PostTue Dec 11, 2012 8:24 pm » by The57ironman


Tuor10 wrote:
the reason they have decided to post on this site.

They want all material out of the public domain.

The intellectual stock of the nation has depreciated. No wonder the intelligence services are shit now-days.

.


Image
................................................... CHA-CHINGLE BELLS .................................................
ImageImageImage

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:23 pm

PostTue Dec 11, 2012 8:28 pm » by TruthPrevails


Thewatcher wrote:Your pretty adamant the individuals accused are innocent, and considering you only know of them from the Internet is a bold stance to take.


They have never been convicted of child abuse offences in a court of law so they are innocent. If you believe otherwise please show me any convictions they have.

Thewatcher wrote:You keep answering questions with questions how about some answers. :think:

It's obvious to most that the 3 imaginary people accused you keep mentioning are false names so when investigated there real identity is hidden, can't you see that. :headscratch:


No what I see is another obvious question like why did the other 19 not also use false names or how do we know the other 19 people were not framed by someone else.

Thewatcher wrote:You never answered another question, the medical evidence stated Hollie was abused, this is more important than 3 false identities being used that you keep harping on about, but yet you have the audacity to call a abused special needs child mentally ill. :scary:


The medical report says no such thing. It says on the basis of probability she was abused and the medical evidence was that she had had full sex with someone but nobody told the medical examiner that Hollie had boyfriends. If they had told them then the report would have been different.

Thewatcher wrote:From where I'm sitting Mal and noentry have put forward numerous articles and facts in this thread to you that you so blatantly can't answer, all you spout out is what about the wrongly accused, how can you be so god damn sure there innocent when you don't even know them personally, this baffles me, and give up on the 3 names that don't exist they were obviously false names to protect the real identities of people in a high position of power.


If someone has never been convicted then they are innocent. The 3 names are important as I said before. Hollie is supposed to have stated those names so I ask again how do we not know the other 19 were not also false names. If they were false names of the 19 then how do we know that this positions of high power is not just a load of old cobblers.

Thewatcher wrote:How about channeling your time exposing the pedo's who abused Hollie who infact has been proven correct by medical experts, she was abused. But all your interested in is trying convince people that some of the accused are innocent, where's the proof off the experts backing your claim up, I see none.

And the audacity coming on here requesting all topics on the Hollie issue to be considered for removal is astonishing.


I do not have any evidence that she was in fact abused. If you read the reports as i have done you will also question the genuineness of the case. If you want proof read the reports.

Thewatcher wrote:And you keep calling Robert green a criminal, that's pathetic that man has balls for standing up against the hypocrisy of it all, just like Mal who is always pleasant and polite to genuine folk.

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that there are some very smart individuals on this site moderators included that know what there talking about which leaves you in a very precarious position if you don't answer questions put to you that need answers.


Robert Green was convicted in a court of law of a criminal offence...he is a criminal and has a criminal record. Sending letters to the neighbours of people you accuse of being paedophiles and murderers without proof is a terrible thing to do.

I have made it my business to persuade people that the HDJ campaign is a hoax and I along with others have done just that. Many of those people were smart intelligent and took for granted that someone would not do the things Robert Green did without proof. However we have requested many of those people to ask him and others for this proof they claim they have but they have not been successful at getting it so doubts have grown and they no longer believe the Hollie Greig campaign.

Only yesterday Tony Bennett stated his change of heart regarding the Hollie Greig campaign.

See here for full statement...

https://www.facebook.com/Hollie.Greig.Hoax.Group/posts/457417567627825
No one should have to prove they are innocent.




Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8574
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:08 am
Location: Next door

PostTue Dec 11, 2012 8:33 pm » by Malogg



Upload to Disclose.tv



Published on Dec 11, 2012
Directed & Edited by Jeff Angel. On Sun 9th Dec 2012 Ian Crane organised a roster of high caliber speakers at an all day event in central London. Brian Gerrish let rip against the totalitarian takeover. 4 More info go to 21stcenturywire. Ian will be releasing a full length DVD of the event; go 2 ianrcrane.com 4 more details.
Image :flop:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm

PostTue Dec 11, 2012 8:55 pm » by Noentry


HollieGreigHoaxGroup if you are honest with this forum you will find Disclose tv welcoming.
If you can admit that you are more then you have led us on to believe it would go a long way to establishing your creditability.
Pretending to be something you are not will hurt you more then you can realise.
Be honest you are more involved, then just in internet contact with 2 of the accused?


HollieGreigHoaxGroup wrote:
Noentry wrote:Do you know?
Hollie has received payments from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority which as we all know is a payment handed out for victims of crime.
If no crime has been committed, why has Hollie received compensation that is only given to victims of a crime?


There are several cases where women have made claims and were found out afterwards to be lying. The burden of proof with the CICB is far far lower than a court of law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206325/Woman-rape-allegation-faces-jail.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003/Rape-liar-jailed.html



The burden of proof in court is to find guilt.
The burden of proof with the CICA is to asses injures.

The CICA assessed Hollies case accourding to her injuries and found her claims of abuse to be true.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what guidance is given to Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) staff on (a) handling claims by victims of sexual assault and (b) the weight to give to reports from experts in such cases; what training CICA caseworkers must complete before undertaking their role; and if he will make a statement. [63620]

Mr Djanogly: CICA staff receive guidance to support them in handling all claims, including claims by victims of sexual assault, quickly, fairly, sensitively and courteously. In considering applications, due and proportionate weight is given to the range of evidence available. CICA caseworkers receive full training on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and its application.

5 July 2011 : Column 1211W

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people lodged with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (a) a claim, (b) a claim relating to a sexual assault, (c) a claim relating to rape of a female and (d) a claim relating to rape of a male in each of the last five years; what proportion of claims in each such category reached a resolution resulting in the (i) payment and (ii) non-payment of compensation; and what the average time taken from the initiation of a claim in each category to its (A) settlement or (B) discontinuance was in each such year. [63621]

5 July 2011 : Column 1212W

Mr Djanogly: The criminal injuries compensation scheme (the scheme), which is set by Parliament, compensates people based on the injuries they sustain not the crime of which they were a victim. The ‘tariff of injuries’, which is the part of the scheme that assigns specific injuries standard amounts of compensation, contains several injury descriptions that could apply to people who have been sexually assaulted, a subset of which are most likely to apply to victims of rape. The figures CICA are able to produce, which follow, are therefore based on claims where they paid awards for these injury descriptions.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 5w0005.htm


Your point is irrelevant to the reality of what happened to Hollie.
The Authority who compensates victims of crime through the medical evidence of their injuries, has compensated Holiie according to the injuries she sustained from her abusers.

In other words no sexual injuries no compensation!

Are you sure you are 100% without doubt?
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:23 pm

PostTue Dec 11, 2012 8:58 pm » by TruthPrevails


Mydogma wrote:a sorry mate your supposed evidence is lacking...those ladies are just babbling...dont even know who left who...and like they would admit it anyways...the accused can afford lawyers to sue...why dont they instead of you being their support team...why not investigate with vigor like they would have done to anyone else...no just 2 bit investigation that is riddled with oddities that simply make no sense...why not be a true hero and start a champaign against the thousands of elites that are know to have participated in such offenses...but no you wish to support shoddy investigation of a very serious allegation...


The ladies are telling the truth and have allowed people to question them on what happened. Unlike HDJ who are a brick wall and refuse to debate anything but keep saying the same thing about 'new evidence' and new this that and the other without any evidence to prove anything they state as fact.

Regarding the 3 imaginary people. If Robert Green had done a good investigation why did he bother to name these fake people in his public statement?
No one should have to prove they are innocent.




Upload to Disclose.tv


Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:23 pm

PostTue Dec 11, 2012 9:05 pm » by TruthPrevails


Noentry wrote:HollieGreigHoaxGroup if you are honest with this forum you will find Disclose tv welcoming.
If you can admit that you are more then you have led us on to believe it would go a long way to establishing your creditability.
Pretending to be something you are not will hurt you more then you can realise.
Be honest you are more involved, then just in internet contact with 2 of the accused?


HollieGreigHoaxGroup wrote:
Noentry wrote:Do you know?
Hollie has received payments from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority which as we all know is a payment handed out for victims of crime.
If no crime has been committed, why has Hollie received compensation that is only given to victims of a crime?


There are several cases where women have made claims and were found out afterwards to be lying. The burden of proof with the CICB is far far lower than a court of law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206325/Woman-rape-allegation-faces-jail.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003/Rape-liar-jailed.html



The burden of proof in court is to find guilt.
The burden of proof with the CICA is to asses injures.

The CICA assessed Hollies case accourding to her injuries and found her claims of abuse to be true.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what guidance is given to Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) staff on (a) handling claims by victims of sexual assault and (b) the weight to give to reports from experts in such cases; what training CICA caseworkers must complete before undertaking their role; and if he will make a statement. [63620]

Mr Djanogly: CICA staff receive guidance to support them in handling all claims, including claims by victims of sexual assault, quickly, fairly, sensitively and courteously. In considering applications, due and proportionate weight is given to the range of evidence available. CICA caseworkers receive full training on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and its application.

5 July 2011 : Column 1211W

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people lodged with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (a) a claim, (b) a claim relating to a sexual assault, (c) a claim relating to rape of a female and (d) a claim relating to rape of a male in each of the last five years; what proportion of claims in each such category reached a resolution resulting in the (i) payment and (ii) non-payment of compensation; and what the average time taken from the initiation of a claim in each category to its (A) settlement or (B) discontinuance was in each such year. [63621]

5 July 2011 : Column 1212W

Mr Djanogly: The criminal injuries compensation scheme (the scheme), which is set by Parliament, compensates people based on the injuries they sustain not the crime of which they were a victim. The ‘tariff of injuries’, which is the part of the scheme that assigns specific injuries standard amounts of compensation, contains several injury descriptions that could apply to people who have been sexually assaulted, a subset of which are most likely to apply to victims of rape. The figures CICA are able to produce, which follow, are therefore based on claims where they paid awards for these injury descriptions.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 5w0005.htm


Your point is irrelevant to the reality of what happened to Hollie.
The Authority who compensates victims of crime through the medical evidence of their injuries, has compensated Holiie according to the injuries she sustained from her abusers.

In other words no sexual injuries no compensation!

Are you sure you are 100% without doubt?


Your logic is flawed. The injuries Hollie 'suffered' if you bother to read the report says that she had been penetrated and nothing more. I can find the report for you to read if I think you will read it.

As for, "no sexual injuries no compensation" both of these women got awards and medical evidence backed them up!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206325/Woman-rape-allegation-faces-jail.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003/Rape-liar-jailed.html

I have already told you my connection to the accused if you choose to disbelieve it that is up to you.
No one should have to prove they are innocent.




Upload to Disclose.tv


Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8574
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:08 am
Location: Next door

PostTue Dec 11, 2012 9:07 pm » by Malogg


READ IT ! . :rtft:


Ben Emlyn-Jones and Internet debate
Posted on December 10, 2012 by Admin
On Saturday evening Belinda kindly forwarded to us an invitation from a Ben Emlyn-Jones who runs a website called Hospital Porters Against the New World Order. Ben indicates that he is confused and has decided that the only way to clear his confusion is to have an “open, live and public debate” on the intricacies of Hollie Greig’s abuse.

We must apologise to Ben, because the Hollie Demands Justice campaign is not here for the benefit of Ben Emlyn-Jones or anyone else who may simply feel ‘confused’.

The Hollie Demands Justice campaign is about obtaining justice for a Down’s Syndrome Woman who has been abused. That is what our supporters campaign for – Justice for Hollie Greig.

We have reiterated several times in the past that this campaign will not be engaging in any type of internet trial, internet debate nor will we be engaging with internet trolls, shills and disinformation.

We understand what Ben’s offer is about, because it is not the first time we have heard it. It is an invitation to break court orders, it is an invitation to discover what our investigations have uncovered since we exposed their moles. It is about garnering sympathy to turn the alleged abusers into the victims by suggesting that they have been falsely accused, but that is not the call of Ben Emlyn-Jones or anyone else in internet land.

If Ben really has doubts, concerns or confusion, we would ask him to campaign with us for a full judicial review, to have all the evidence presented in a correct and proper manner, in the correct place, a court of law. That way his confusion will turn into focused facts, and if anyone has been falsely accused then they will be adjudged so and their names cleared in the proper way.





Original Article at Hollie Demands Justice http://holliedemandsjustice.org/content ... et-debate/
Image :flop:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 9222
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm

PostTue Dec 11, 2012 9:20 pm » by Noentry


HollieGreigHoaxGroup wrote:
Your logic is flawed. The injuries Hollie 'suffered' if you bother to read the report says that she had been penetrated and nothing more. I can find the report for you to read if I think you will read it.


As for, "no sexual injuries no compensation" both of these women got awards and medical evidence backed them up!


that she had been penetrated and nothing more.


Nothing more?

Hey?

Nothing more.

If that was your daughter, grand daughter, sister would it be ok if she has claimed to being abused, But thats alright according to you she was just penetrated.

You sound like a pedo sympathiser to me.
You let that one slip past you.
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook