There's something about this case which just doesn't add up.

"Man who made abuse claims jailed"

www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/954942..._abuse_claims_jailed

Brian Gerrish sums up the case on the Lou Collins radio show: www.freerobertgreen.co.uk/brian-gerrish-...-collins-radio-show/

Is there something I'm missing?

Best Wishes,
Jim

well yes...there is no evidence of the pedo ring and that is what is important in law.

I've seen this caases before where gossip begets gossip and so on until an MP has started accusing people under privilege and suicides have resulted...which they then claim is further 'proof' of guilt.

sorry Jim but having now watched the videos of this guy...he's is the very worst style of fantatical nutter who doesn't present one iota of proof in his case and demands 'justice'..but about what ?

it's all flim flam claims and his campaign to 'name and shame' on the basis that there was bo investigation is a classic chicken and egg situation.

he also seems obsessed with a case where a bloke wasn;t jailed for possesion of child porn saying he was the "principal purveyor"..but looking at reports there is no such claim by the police..just possession (quite apart from claims of thousands of images is a regular police exageration)

the guys website does him no justice either..not an ounce of proof except to say 'google' the name. Another case that Google somehow is the god of all information.

and the first Google article that comes up weaves the McCann case into the tale and claims the News of The World 'courageouly' exposed the Hollie Grieg matter and the 'rest is history'..sure is !!

I'm sure something went on but the matter has taken on a life of it's own and even worse Robert Green and apparently his supporters claim he has been jailed for fighting 'peodophilia" when he's been jailed fior defying a court order which is a totally different case.

Abuse of a disabled person is horrific,as are false allegations.Both ruin lives in their own way.
Without the full facts it's hard to comment,easy to make your mind up by believing the meejah version of events.

IA -I cannot see any proof of these allegations . Green says in interviews it would be easy for those accused to show bank accounts etc etc to prove they are innocent.

People accused should never have to prove their are innocent..it's up to accusers to prove guilt.

Some things about the case are disturbing...the idea the girl was abused by policemen, judges etc without the mother having any knowledge. Really?..there was no change in attitude in the girl?

sounds supiciously like the pedo /witchcraft claims that spiralled out iof control in the USA in the 1980s.

Also their claim that compo was paid is not proof of anything and it's far more common than thought.

looks like they are weaving a web of sorts by linking together disconnected facts.

Thanks Veritas,

I'm totally with you on false allegations. I think the problem is that it seems the powerful are able to protect themselves from allegations, whether they are true or not, without investigation, while the rest of us are subject to having our lives turned over, whether they are false or not.

Best Wishes,
Jim

A 12 month sentence for someone with no criminal record is absolutely outrageous though and may suggest that this has been done in an attempt to silence people.

Jim you have me bloddy well hooked on this case !!!

but yes of course the powerful can protect themsleves..usually.

It's Salem witch hunt time. ..not one iota of proof given. Just allegations.

Even David Icke is involved !!

This is so reminiscent of a nutty NSW MP who named a judge (who committed suicide the following day) and others in Parliament under privilege...she described a high profile powerful pedo ring of police , judges etc etc..all protected and so on.

She was actually describing the plot of a film The Everlasting Secret Family which had been re-told to her by a known nutter.

Poor woman had to retire when she claimed a gay group threatened to out her 2 gay sons as trolling gay beats when they were underage (which was true) ...they fled the country and never returned. Outed by their mother!

Thanks Veritas,

I'm afraid I don't entirely follow your post, but you write:

"not one iota of proof given."

Here, what concerns me is the implication that in order to publicly allege a crime it is necessary to have proof or risk being arrested for a breach of the peace carrying nine months jail term on a first offence.

The following are worth considering. The offence of "breach of the peace" can fairly be translated as "he didn't actually break a law, your honour, but we wanted to arrest him anyway". It is normally used only to bind a suspect over to keep the peace, at most involving an overnight detention. Furthermore, if the account at hand is to be believed, Robert Green did not in fact distribute the offending leaflets, but rather was on the cusp of doing so. The offence, then, was "being about to commit a breach of the peace", or would be, if such a formula of words were known to the law.

In fact, no proof is ever required to publish an allegation without risking criminal offence. At worst, it may be required to avoid civil libel litigation.

And on the topic of proof, it is normally arrived at after an investigation and presented in court. In this case the suspects have not even been investigated. Are you saying that before an investigation is conducted there should first be proof? Normal practice requires merely a prima facie case.

Meanwhile, contrary to the witch hunt model from Salem, where it was impossible to defend the accused and condemn the hysteria without oneself becoming caught up in the net of suspicion, and where those accused were burnt at the stake, in this case it is the accuser who is rotting in jail and who is incapable of pointing the finger without being institutionally condemned.

Recall that in Salem the religious and legal authorities of the day were cold in their condemnation of a group of girls playing in the forest and in the madness others got caught up. Here, the political and legal authorities are the ones accused and there has been no trial. To be precise, there has been neither conviction, charge, investigation, nor arrest. It seems the witches are beyond reproach. If anything, then, this case is Salem in reverse.

Best Wishes,
Jim

as far as I can read...the breach of peace was over leaflets that he has distributed that named with photographs a number of people like the sheriff, police , judge etc as being pedos or aiding and abetting an evil peodphile ring so I believe Salem is entirely appropriate as - if you read the various threads on message boards (Icke etc) they accuse those who defend those unfairly named ...their lawyers etc.. as being corrupt and abetting child abuse.

He was breaching the peace and the UK is not the USA with 'freedom of speech' (as the supporters keep claiming and that his 'freedom' is being suppressed) and you cannot defame people. There is still a law against criminal defamation.

His jailing was for breaching bail conditions but Green and his supporters continue to confuse why he was jailed (albeit with what seems an unfair heavy sentence)

One thread even specualtes that because the Procurator Fiscal threatened a defamation action against a newspaper which then retracted the claims...this is further proof that the .."truth is being silenced"

I've watched the video of Robert Green with his presentation to a group of wolly haired pensioners (more interesting than bingo!) and again , he makes wild accusations yet presents not one single bit of proof.

factors that stand out to me :
# I simply do not believe the police would not be champing at the bit to go after a bunch of accused pedos if their was proof, no matter who they were. They'd be there with bells on.

# I have no doubt the girl was abused and it seems her doctor confirmed it but by who ?..it defies logic that she would be able to name a whole bunch of well connected people who all apaprently engaged in this vast pedo conspiracxy, did not hide their indentities and used their own houses or a policeman lent his house and so on...all of which occured when she was 5/6 years old.

# It reeks of the same witch hunt pedo scandals in the USA in the early 1980s where children were coached by prosecutors into believing abuse had happened.

# the brave NoTW "exposes" the "truth" but the BBC pulls out after examining the claims and finding them deficiemt..the BBC is therefore 'silencing the truth"

They all continue to make great leaps of logic : a man died in a fire and ipso facto..because he was previously involved he must have been murdered by the powerful pedo group...not one accused (by Green supporters) has stepped forward to even proclaim their innocence..ipso facto..they must be guilty....because lawyers, sheriffs and those in the legal fraternity know each other..entirely common..there is a vast conspiracy

There is a solution..even in jail Robert Green can launch a private prosecution of all those he names (and the girl names with their addresses and occupations....something way beyond the abilities of most other 6 year olds which is when the abuse is alleged to have happened)..he has a QC defending him...and he can present his proof.

If only Aberdeen was that exciting... I went once and it was closed

I also note a vast number of Green supporters also support the Illuminat/Rothschild/ Jewish world control conspracy, the 'climate scam' comspiracy, Ron Paul and are anti feminists etc etc blah blah and also run aids for 'miracle hair growth cures that work"

Thanks Veritas,

You make very many fair points and it is no part of my case that these accusations Robert Green is making are true, nevertheless there are four points I would like to make.

Firstly, as a matter of logic, to conclude that because Green supporters run ads for "miracle hair growth" and other such specious nonsense therefore Green must be wrong in his allegations is an ad hominem fallacy.

Secondly, as you may already know, private prosecutions can be taken over by the CPS and closed down, even if you can afford them. This makes them highly risky.

Thirdly, you write:

"His jailing was for breaching bail conditions"

On my reading he got three months for breaching bail conditions, yes, but also nine months for breach of the peace, making up twelve months in total.

Finally, you write:

"There is still a law against criminal defamation."

Indeed, but then, why wasn't it used?

Best Wishes,
Jim

(the hair bit was a Joke Joyce/Jim)

I believe there is a 'breach of the peace" if he has been distributing leaflets that defame many people including sheriffs, senior law officer etc.

As far as I read (but correct me)..he got 9 months for 'breach of the peace' and says he never received an injunction..and presumably the injunction was being served to prevent him distributing leaflets and he also breached his bail conditions. Claiming you didn't get an in junction (possible) will not invalidate that injunction.

Frankly I cannot see why his solicitor who is a QC could not present the evidence Robert Green says he has, to disprove that he was breaching the peace by distributing leaflets. Maybe during the appeal.

I don;t know if what he says is true or false...but as I say Green does not present an iota of proof in any of his talks on radio or videos. He just says the abuse was perpetuated by a number of people because the girl told him so.

It just does not ring true that a child could remember such extraordinary details. She could however be coached which is common.

Surely all the people he claims were abusers are entitled to the protection of the law by not having someone on this campaign to accuse without evidence.

All this weaving together of separate components do not make a conspiracy.

I've searched and searched the net (and now I'm bored with the case) and find all sorts of claims on websites including the official one...and what it all boils down to is a girl who is mentally 'challenged' making claims of abuse (which certainly happened..her father)but there is no other evidence.

I'm prepared to change my mind though if someone offers more..

Thanks for all your work on this, Veritas.

I'm coming to think you may be more right that I am.

For one thing, I didn't know about the injunction, which may help explain a few things.

We'll see what happens on appeal.

Best Wishes,
Jim

it fascinated me because I have been through something similar over the past 4 years...defending an old lady in a church who was accused of stealing a huge amount of money.

The whole matter spiraled out of control as rumour after rumour spread and dozens of people simply believed what they had been told..yet there was no proof...no interest from the police...and when it finally went to court and the accusers admitted it was all false..there wasn't even money there to steal...they turned around after and claimed they were nobbled in the court and the solicitors were corrupt and so on..setting up websites ..never ending.

Opened my eyes as to how easy it is to manipulate a bunch of well meaning people.

But Green could be entirely right and just not presenting his case properly. The appeal should be interesting.