Isn’t it sad that haters, trolls and ‘shills‘ are populating the web to undermine what well-meaning people are doing to compensate for the shortcomings of the mainstream media!?… But:

everybody always does as best as they can. If they knew better, they would do better!

Sharon Kilby has decided to make war on shills – starting with myself and Belinda McKenzie, co-founders of the Association of McKenzie Friends – as public interest advocates.

Sharon’s ‘exposure’ saddens me particularly, for I don’t only believe, I KNOW that she ‘comes from the right place’. So she must have been ‘misguided’ – by mis- and dis-informers – the kinds of people she is declaring war against.

What is even sadder, is the fact that she has helped me big time to take a stance against haters and trolls. But now I have fallen into the shills category in her mind.


  • Because she thinks that everybody who believes the Hollie Greig (a woman of 33 with Downs’ Syndrome) story is a ‘shill’.
  • And I certainly do believe the Hollie Greig story.

Why? Because:

  • I saw Hollie, her mother Ann and her supporter Robert Green at a hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice (who would go through such procedures, if there wasn’t a real reason for it!?)
  • I have spent a lot of time with Belinda who is the spokesperson for the campaign
  • I see the Hollie Greig ‘case’ as the tip of the iceberg of sexual abuse and  paedophilia
  • and I join the dots between paedophilia and / or money as the motivation for institutionalised child snatching.

Sharon believes that anybody who believes Hollie Greig, like her mother Anne, Belinda, Robert Green and many supporters nationwide, is a shill.

But beliefs can turn into understanding and knowledge. May she revise her ‘shill test’! May she learn enough about Hollie to have no doubt!

For the benefit of any reader of any level of familiarity with the ‘story’, here are the chronological facts:

  1. In 1997, Anne Greig’s brother died in suspicious circumstance.
  2. In May 2000, Hollie’s parents separated and she went to a Women’s Refuge with her mum.
  3. Away from her abusive father at last, she had the courage to begin to tell her mother what she had experienced. She named as her abusers her father and her brother. Anne took her to the Police who ordered a forensic examination which confirmed that Hollie had been serially and historically raped since her childhood. However, nothing further was done to arrest the abusers.
  4. As the months went by, Hollie named a further 20 people as abusers. Her father had taken her periodically to meet with this group, some of whom were members of the family. Once again, her mother took her to the Police to make a report. A few days later, in early September, Anne was forcibly sectioned and taken to the local Mental Health Unit. She managed to extricate herself by getting an independent psychiatric opinion and ascertained that the action had been unwarranted. By this time, Anne was determined to fight for for her daughter who pressed her to pursue her abusers, knowing very well the difference between right and wrong.
  5. Having failed to get Grampian Police to investigate Hollie’s allegations, Anne obtained 2 expert reports on Hollie and again took them to the Police. Again: no investigation.
  6. Anne then complained to the Police Complaints Commission Scotland who pursued the matter with Grampian Police, but came to no positive conclusion, because the crucial expert reports were withheld.
  7. However, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority awarded £13,500 in total on the basis of these reports.
  8. Because of harassment from her husband and others in Scotland, Anne decided to move to England and once again sought refuge, this time in Shropshire. At the same time, her ex-husband absconded to Portugal, taking her inheritance and their son with him.
  9. Having settled in Shropshire, eventually Anne was introduced to Robert Green who took up Hollie’s cause and began campaigning on their behalf. In 2009, a BBC journalist contacted Anne with a view to making a documentary. However, after a considerable amount of material was collected, the program was never broadcast.
  10. In September 2009, two officers from Grampian Police came to Shrewsbury to interview Hollie. She spoke to them for 3 1/2 hours on her own, giving full details of the ordeal she suffered. Once again: no investigation or follow-up.
  11. By this time, the story had become very public on the internet. In December 2009, the then Lord Advocate of Scotland who had been Procurator Fiscal for Aberdeen at the time when Hollie had begun to report her abusers issued a gagging order against the press for linking her name to the Hollie Greig story. Questions as to whose money paid for this action remain unanswered.
  12. Also in December 2009, after twelve years of requesting this from the Crown Office, Anne at last obtained the autopsy report on her brother’s death in 1997 which only deepened her suspicions that it had not been suicide. By this time she also knew from Hollie that, shortly before his death, her uncle Roy had witnessed her father raping her and her father had said “I’ll kill you.”
  13. In January 2010, Robert Green posted an accusation to all of those whom Hollie had named as her alleged abusers and to some of their neighbours, that they were involved in paedophile abuse. He also began to campaign publicly as a general election candidate in Aberdeen on the issues of corruption and paedophilia.
  14. The upshot was that he was arrested and charged with breaching an injunction, which had to be commuted to a breach of the peace. He was released on bail, pending trial which finally took place in January 2012.
  15. He was convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment. Due to a public campaign, he was released after 3 months.
  16. As a result of the public campaign, pressure was put on the Shropshire authorities, supposedly by Grampian Police, to inhibit Anne and Hollie’s activities. In June 2010 their small house was raided and smashed up by the Police.
  17. Then in July, proceedings started in the Royal Courts of Justice with a view to Hollie being taken into Local Authority care, away from her mother and the campaign.
  18. An appeal was unsuccessful and in 2013, the case is now in the Court of Protection.

If only Grampian Police had performed their public duty to investigate Hollie’s father and brother in May 2000, when the abuse was first reported to them and they obtained confirmation that Hollie was a victim, this public embarrassment, waste of public funds and most likely continued abuse of young girls by these two key paedophiles would have been avoided.

Justice for Hollie and Anne in 2000 would have meant:

  • Roy’s death being properly investigated;
  • Hollie’s main perpetrators being behind bars;
  • Anne’s inheritance money being returned;
  • Anne would not have an unlawfully obtained mental health record;
  • Robert Green would not have had to campaign and name names;
  • and little girls in Portugal and elsewhere would have been safe from at least two major paedophiles!

I guess it’s a sign of success to attract ‘negative publicity':

  • Banks only give credit now when they get ‘positive publicity’…
  • Americans say ‘any publicity is ok, just spell my name right’…