the stone in the shoe

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1552/439/MUST_SEE_:_THE_HOLLIE_GREIG_CASE_-_ROBERT_GREEN_INTERVIEW,_NOV._2010.html

This and we wont go away

http://the-can-of-worms.blogspot.com/


SOME MORE THOUGHTS OF THIS BLOGS GOOD FRIEND MATT QUINN


Look! - An Elephant!

{QUOTE}:

"In 2000 a young Aberdeen Down's Syndrome girl called Hollie Mackie told her Mother, Anne that she had been sexually abused for many years by [REDACTED], Sheriff Graeme Buchanan of Aberdeen and others at the house of Sheriff Buchanan's sister, [REDACTED] Buchanan."



Elsewhere it emerges that this alleged Sister of Sheriff Buchanan has a husband who also shares the surname Buchanan... Unusual that! - It's been the Elephant in the room for some time. - Doesn't a married woman normally adopt her Husband's surname? Maybe she'd keep her own of course. Or perhaps if she were the last of her lineage the couple might hyphenate their names...


But in either of those case her husband would either retain his own name; or be Mr ‘Buchanan-Something’ - But he’s not! He’s just plain old Mr Buchanan. And he’s not the Sheriff’s Brother either - It’s very easy to establish that there is no family relationship between the Buchanans, who were allegedly hosts to these debauched events at which children were used as sex toys, and the Aberdeen Sheriff of that same surname...


Mark Daly of course used this to great effect on live radio where he made Robert Green look quite foolish. And foolish he had been. An example of Green hearing what he wants to hear, not checking the facts and having no eye for detail... And, as Greg Lance-Watkins published these allegations to the world; something that speaks volumes about his abilities on that score too...


So, Daly blows the entire Hollie Greig case out of the water with one torpedo! - Even though he acknowledges there is probable evidence that Hollie was indeed abused at some point! So much for the dogged investigator who never lets a line of enquiry go until the truth has been exposed. Surely some ‘mishtake’? One-shot-Daly leaves the wreckage to float away while ‘others’, having apparently spent the evening in the company of Messrs Morangie and Fiddich later join the fray on-air to confirm that they work with “big lawyers” on “big stories” and generally promote the cause of ‘big Marky’...


Elsewhere Daly’s to be found nursing moral outrage; spouting self-righteously about his track record, obviously offended that anyone would dare question his journalistic moral compass. Greg Lance-Watkins suddenly hoists his true colours as it becomes apparent his part in things is likely to be exposed and ripped apart... And Hollie’s hopes of justice start heading south as the whole case heads up mockingbird lane...


Green provided the powder for that torpedo, Watkins packed it; but it was Daly who fired it and then walked away in a strop; as cheap a shot as I can imagine...


However - Inconvenient though some will find it, Sheriff Buchanan is not a likely candidate to be the same ‘Graham’ who was allegedly involved in the abuse of Hollie Greig... There are a number of difficulties with sticking to the claim that he is; not the least of which is that hounding the wrong man allows the real offender to walk free.


That's not to say that I personally believe Buchanan's hands to be clean; I am of the firm opinion that Green's persecution indicates that man may well have something to hide... Some nasty little secret he would rather didn't come out in the wash. But, as Green of all people should appreciate; creating handy scapegoats does not serve the ends of justice.


Of course this does not detract from Hollie’s claims in any way. She was a child at the time of the assault upon her. She was doubtless frightened, confused, disoriented - and of course less mentally agile than the average person. The scum who abused her could have told her anything as to who was who; and probably did.


One is better off not attempting to comprehend the minds of the sick, debauched individuals who indulge in this type of activity. However can there be any doubt that they are dishonest and corrupt? - In which case why would we expect them to have given their real identities so readily away to children they were using as mere playthings? Hollie is not, In my opinion, lying when she says she was abused by a man she believes was calling himself Graham Buchanan. She is not lying when she claims to believe that man to be a lawyer; she is simply repeating the disinformation that was deliberately fed to her.


Green needs to ‘fess up’ to his responsibilities here; he was ripped to shreds on live radio by Daly simply because he had not thoroughly investigated the most obvious of issues... That same issue is the spark that will probably see him (figuratively) ‘burned at the stake’.


-Which brings us back to the same old raft of questions.


Why did Sheriff Buchanan not take the fairly obvious and valid route of instigating a defamation action against Greg Lance-Watkins and possibly Robert Green? And why is Green being targeted in this ludicrous way when Greg Lance-Watkins – who had far more to do with the dissemination of the allegations against Buchanan – is allowed to go as free as air?


It is my belief that, in journalistic terms, the Hollie Greig case as reported by the Greig Ladies is merely a signpost. – I do not say that dismissively, for as even One-shot Daly seems to concede, there is evidence to suggest Hollie was abused; and that cannot rest unchallenged. However the wider ‘story’ that emerges – for those not too lazy to investigate it - is not one that is particularly attractive if what the ‘journalist’ in question seeks is notoriety in the profession though cheap, flash ‘tabloidesque’ exposé.


The story that emerges is a soul-destroying tale of grubby little perverts living in grubby little houses engaging in a particularly grubby little trade to sate a grubby little appetite...


That trade is primarily in extreme pornography. And you may find within it people with a long standing interest in the production side of things. – At least two of the individuals named in relation to the Hollie Greig case for instance have specialist knowledge of audio-visual techniques. One of these is an ‘amateur’ who has often spent the price of a car on particular pieces of professional equipment. – And yet for all that ‘enthusiasm’ and investment has nothing much to show by way of programme material - or perhaps nothing that can be shown in decent company?


Elsewhere in the disturbing story of the Hollie Greig case we have other individuals, well-placed to ship elicit pornography to the UK and, via contacts in their ‘day job’ to and from other corners of the world. – Curious creatures that do menial jobs which pay far less money than could supply the lavish lifestyle they have acquired for themselves... Others still seem well-placed to distribute illegal material within the UK - The vestigial remains, for instance, of a once legitimate but now failed retail outlet would provide the sort of storage and distribution ‘front’ that could allow filth to be bought and sold and sent all over the country with barely a question.


Unlike Mark Daly I do not believe that the ‘through a glass darkly’ allegations laid by Anne and Hollie Greig are ether the beginning or end of the story here. Devastating though their experiences have been, the Greig ladies are simply, as I say, a signpost. What we hear from Anne and Hollie is flawed, it is probably inaccurate in places and at times hysterical – but it is not fundamentally untrue in my opinion.


A complex tangled web (often inadvertently) linking minor perverts, sex offenders, readers of dirty books, injelitant Police services, social work departments, medics – None of this makes for big blazing headlines or fills hours of airtime. Examining even a small part of that web reveals minor connections so complex that any and all coherence is quickly lost. And like a Spider’s web, any ‘vibrations’ on one corner send the creature scuttling to ‘wrap up’ any prey or predator...


Sheriff Graham Buchanan may well be easily able to demonstrate he had nothing to do with the abuse of Hollie Greig. And one might reasonably wonder just how much control and influence he has had over events once he’d started the snowball rolling with that interdict. – But really; why all the fuss?

What the hell does the so-called justice system in Scotland think it's proving by persecuting this man? - And why is the man who actually was behind spreadig these claims to the world being allowed to go untroubled - What hold does he have over those in authority?

The spark of a conspiracy theory? Maybe - there's certainly something amiss here.


For me, the one thing the persecution of Robert Green has achieved is to cause me to wonder what exactly it is Buchanan et al might have to hide. It has caused me to wonder just how fit for purpose is our justice system – when a rape victim is bullied and harassed and her allegation really not properly addressed – yet a hapless, foolish, yet well-meaning man receives the sort of treatment only fitting for a violent criminal or drugs offender for pushing the issue?


A reasonably well-estimated half million pounds of taxpayers money is being spend chasing this silly man down for Breach of The Peace – A charge normally used to clear the streets of shouty drunks!


Methinks the Scottish justice system is being run by Queen Gertrude; for it doth protest too much about completely the wrong things! - Really Mulholland should order an immediate end to this farce; it’s a complete waste of public money and resources; and frankly is causing the light of suspicion to be turned on the people behind it!

Merry Christmas from Angolinis Practise

Mr Green has informed me he recieved Christmas greetings from Dame Angolinis practise @terrafirmachambers.com

Surely a cruel joke , the words ,get stuffed, seem appropriate not only for the turkey .

A CAN OF WORMS MY DEAR WATKINS

http://the-can-of-worms.blogspot.com/2011/12/something-stinks-here.html

Greg Lance-Watkins... Chepstow's real-life Walter Mitty.

A serial liar, and fantasist has engineered a situation where the rape of a Downs sydrome child is left almost unreportable. He's done this by setting up his own Kangaroo Court using material that should, by law, be protected; driving the whole case into conspiracy theory where the mainstream press can't touch it! - Thus protecting at least two men who raped a very vulnerable child. - That liar and fantasist's name is Greg Lance-Watkins.

Wednesday, 14 December 2011

Something stinks here...

And it isn’t just the ammonia-like stench from a certain “bag of piss and wind” (his own turn of phrase) from Chepstow...

In terms of the Hollie Greig case, and her quest for justice, Greg Lance-Watkins is very much the villain of the piece; but ultimately, I have to tell you that Robert Green has been foolish on many levels and that I cannot condone or endorse his actions. - Particularly those over the past 18 months or so when it became clear that Watkins had lead him ‘up the garden path’ as it were. He was, to my certain knowledge better advised after that disgusting old wretch was removed from the scene. Green chose another path.

It has to be recognised and acknowledged that certain individuals ( and I’m not necessarily talking about Green here) seek notoriety off the back of Hollie’s tragedy. They seek to sell books, lecture tours, tickets for rallies, get their faces on TV and generally fit this child’s tragedy into whatever quasi-political agenda suits their particular madness... And their followers; often unwell or damaged by injustice themselves; again, determined to fit Hollie’s case into the story of their own lives.

Justice? For Hollie Greig? - Hardly likely as certain people carry on where Greg Lance-Watkins left off and drive the whole matter further and further down the dark road of madness! -Tragedy heaped on tragedy. Of course none of this would ever have happened had the girl simply received what was due to her in the first place.

Watkins’ perverted ‘Stolen Kids’ site served certain purposes; most of them nefarious. – There was the sick ‘entertainment‘ aspect of course; and the fact it ‘deflected’ much press attention from Hollie’s case while it seemed (as Watkins put it) ‘Official’. Interestingly though it backfires badly on him...

Since being hacked, all of the inflammatory material that was posted after Watkins’ revealed his true nature and duplicity has been removed. This is a positive thing as much of that material was openly stalking and attacking Anne and Hollie Grieg (an offence in itself) – often in deeply disturbing and perverse ways. Alleviating some of the ongoing distress caused to the Greig Ladies is an achievement. – That does not mean it is gone forever though.

The contentious material is archived of course, and it’s even possible still for the public to access it. So it remains evidence that might well see Watkins brought up on charges – we certainly hope so. 

Similarly, the core site (left as it was; completely unaltered) as it was up to around March 2010 serves as proof not (as the pervert’s lobby would have it) to condemn Green; but to prove his innocence, in so far as he had no control over what was posted there; and was being conned into endorsing it. That material has been allowed to stand and again this is a very positive thing... Greg Lance-Watkins is the author of his own misfortune in terms of what awaits him.

It seems too that the perverse Facebook page that was set up recently to attack Hollie was taken down. We (as a company) can tell you that we took legal advice to have pages related to us and our staff removed; and I believe a certain level of input was provided by our lawyers to Facebook in that respect. – Not that we to any degree seek credit for having the offending page relating to Hollie removed; we believe that was primarily the work of certain of Hollie’s advocates who are to be commended for their efforts.

So it seems we may be rounding a corner as those who have a vested interest in attacking Hollie’s case and preventing her from getting justice begin to be brought to heel. – But of course a bunch of ignorant perverts messing around childishly on Facebook or in evil-minded blogs or even their own perverted websites is as nothing compared to the actions of officialdom in perverting the course of justice...

For certain, the Likes of Kenny McAskill and Eilish Angiolini do not, in my opinion, serve their country well. And they strike me as particularly unpleasant, arrogant and self-serving individuals; with no interest in honesty, justice or the wellbeing of the people who pay their grossly-inflated wages. But then that is the nature of the modern political animal. Politics and dishonesty are words which are almost completely interchangeable. 

That said; whilst I do personally believe these people to be dishonourable and dishonest - to demonise them in the particular way that has been done in relation to the Hollie Greig case is just plain silly... Childishly so! And clearly some folk really just need to grow up! - Cogent, logical, well-grounded exposure of evidenced failure is what is required to expose these animals; not fairy stories about Witches, Satanists and Masons! However the antics of the more fanciful sectors of Hollie’s support do not detract from some very simple facts.

Hollie Greig, a little girl as she was at the time, was raped... Her rapists are alive and well and living in freedom... And the justice system has failed this most vulnerable of citizens. -Utterly! 

– Some of Hollie’s supporters may be (to quote one particularly arrogant, spineless, dim-witted and ill-informed prick from the BBC) “stupid bloody amateurs”; But just because they don’t know what they’re doing, that doesn’t mean they don’t have damn good reasons and justification for doing it! 

The official attitude and response to the Hollie Greig case highlights a serious problem in public service. In fact the official response to the Hollie Greig case is nothing short of an outrage. It stinks! - It stinks of failure, it stinks of dishonesty, it stinks of bullying, it stinks of abuse of power and privilege, it stinks of corruption, it stinks of fear.

Consider the matters raised by Robert Green in his blog entry of December the 6th 2011...

http://holliedemandsjustice-robertgreensblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/shameful-role-of-shropshire-council.html

– Whilst many of Green’s conclusions and allusions may be questioned, the bare facts are pretty much as he says... The home of a disabled woman and her Mother was vandalised by officially sanctioned thugs. And there is no other word to describe the people who carried out this act. By any reasonable measure it was extreme and unjustified.

– Likewise the extraordinary lengths and resources dedicated to hauling the hapless Robert Green up on the relatively trivial charge of Breach of the Peace... 

We should expect and demand more from professionals – especially those employed to serve the public. But sadly, as any regular reader of “Private Eye” will know; you can, with disturbing reliability, fill pages and pages with copy that exposes the corrupt and dishonest culture that underpins big business and public service...

As much as this is all driven by lack of integrity it is also due to a lack of competence. Indeed; the capable and the worthy are actively blocked and discouraged - even bullied to the point of being made ill, within many public service organisations. The capable and the worthy represent a threat to the status quo...

Throughout public service there is a culture of ‘injelitance’. That is to say one where managers do not promote individuals whose competence might threaten their own position; while management shuns equality, it feeds on mediocrity or worse. And of course embraces dishonesty in the process. – This is quite childish in nature. One can often observe that the management of both public service organisations and the quasi-commercial ‘private’ sector (i.e. privatised utilities etc) bear more of a resemblance to some collection of wee lassies playing ‘shops and offices’ than it does any credible or remotely useful professional activity...

Childish and dishonest - it is actually quite rare to find a public service these days that is being managed and run by sensible, honest serious-minded grown-ups! 

We live in a culture where, in public service, failure is often not only rewarded but promoted... Dishonesty flourishes; and you can select your descriptive cliché at will for what follows – painting the roses red – Emperor’s new clothes syndrome (ENCS). Personally I prefer to call a spade a spade and a crook a crook! 

- An obsession with box-ticking and the generation of vacuous statistics with which to ‘prove’ their lies typifies the injelitant management system. Invariably their job becomes about the manipulation of so-called ‘performance indicators’, self-preservation and guardianship of budgets rather than actually providing the core service. Only a flimsy facade of that core service is important to them. Even then, so entrenched in arrogance and secure in their delusions do they become, that really is the most superficial of illusions.

This is why for instance you’ll find a top-heavy NHS. – an education system where barely-able-to-read school leavers are given worthless certification – a fire brigade that stands around arguing about ‘health and safety’ while a woman’s life ebbs away – senile pensioners left to endanger themselves and others when they should be in sheltered housing or care homes – Doctor’s surgeries where ‘the management’ make it as awkward as possible for sick people to actually see a doctor... This is why a vulnerable victim of crime can be denied justice; and when her advocates cry “foul” they are rounded upon...

A prime example of the most obscenely childish behaviour exists in the persecution of Robert Green. 

There is little doubt that Green has gone about things the wrong way. There is little doubt that he lacks the necessary attention to detail. There is no doubt that his research into the case is flawed, many of his conclusions are ridiculous. His understanding of the law apparently has more to do with TV fiction than reality and he seems to only hear what he wants to hear. 

But there is one thing about which he is not wrong. The justice system has failed Hollie Greig...

– So what if the man is a bloody nuisance? So what is he is ‘nuts’? I’m asking McAskill and his cronies how that is worth a reasonably well-estimated ½ Million pounds of taxpayer’s money spent bringing him to book on a piss-poor Breach of The Peace charge? And make no mistake; this certainly appears to be how the playground bullies involved with the administration of justice in Scotland prefer to spend our money!

I’ll leave you with an interesting thought. – Sheriff Graham Buchanan could easily and soundly ‘see off’ Robert Green’s allegations against him. 

– A man called something like ‘Graham Buchanan’ may well have been involved in the abuse of Hollie Greig. But it is quickly and easily established that he is extremely unlikely to be the Sheriff of a similar name. - This leaves us with a serious difficulty...

On principal no-one need prove their innocence; it is up to their accusers to prove guilt. However, in the real world it is often more practical, appropriate and satisfactory to call an accuser’s bluff. – A short press statement and perhaps an interdict would have killed the allegations against Buchanan stone dead. And given a legitimate and easily navigated path to prosecution should it have proved necessary. Instead we have the current situation...

Half-a-million-pounds spent - how? – Why?

Trying to gag some madman? Defending the interests of well-heeled individuals who work for the so-called Scottish justice system? Trying to cover something up perhaps? What is it they are trying to hide in all this?

Green will, in my view, be convicted. And in the process he will become a martyr and hero to the ‘tin foil hat’ brigade. And, though I disassociate and distance myself from that particular group, it has to be acknowledged

– Green’s conviction, and indeed this whole debacle leaves more questions surrounding the Hollie Greig case than we started out with...

well well well

Anna Raccoon aka Susan Nundy, is once again exposed as “a professional Trojan Horse”

16APR

My, my, my…excellent article, Ian.

Anna Raccoon – taken http://www.parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/at face value?

Posted on April 16, 2011 by IanPJ

There has in the last few days been the most despicable and revolting blog post that I have read in a long time.

I am ashamed, not for who I am or what I believe in, but for the disgusting display of pack animals on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations by Susanne Nundy (Anna Raccoon), especially from those who claim to be libertarian.

I am disappointed to the point of being disgusted. Disgusted that so very few indicated that every story has two sides, and that not one single person said the words ‘prove it’, or ‘where is the evidence’, and it says more about the hive mentality of the audience than the delusions of the writer.

Susanne Nundy, aka Anna Raccoon has decided to air some of her dirty washing in public, yet when we delve deeper into her past and her possible motives, it creates a very different view to her latest story line, because Susanne Nundy has been acting to destabilise the Libertarian Party since its inception, creating problems for the Leadership of the party at every opportunity.

But before we get too far into the Nundy past, let me refute completely her version of events with regards to myself and the actions of Rohan Kapur.

The very first I had heard of this ‘incident’ was when I received a late night telephone call at 11pm on the day that Rohen had left her home. She recalled that she had been in touch by email with Rohan over a period of time, that online conversations led on to the matter of property, that Rohan was looking to buy such a property and that she had a second property that she had for sale. As such she had invited him to France to look at it, and as he had not booked any accommodation for his visit decided to put him up at home for the 2 days he was to be there.

She then explained the ‘events’ of the food eating, the photo’s and the computer use and asked of me ‘what are you going to do about it’.

My response was that if true, such allegations were somewhat serious, but what would she like me to do about it, because as far as I was concerned this was a private matter and nothing to do with the party and I didn’t understand why she would call me over his behaviour.

At this point she then demanded, and I mean demanded, that because Rohen was a Libertarian PPC it was my business, that he was unsuitable as a candidate, that I should discuss this with Andrew (who apart from being Chairman at that time was also acting as the candidate selection officer) and if necessary call a special NCC meeting to have Rohen deselected. She also demanded a full and unreserved apology from Rohen Kapur, because her husband was ready to start legal proceedings unless LPUK did something about him.

It was at this point that she advised me of Rohen’s mental health problems, told me that she had seen his medical record and actually read back to me a list of conditions that were in that file, along with a series of matters that were before the GMC. (that is the first time that my alarm bells began to ring with regards to Susanne Nundy). When asked how she had access to these files, she indicated that some former colleagues had advised her of Rohan’s unsuitability… which if she had known beforehand… would never have invited him to France… Yet she had this information to hand to read to me on the day he left…

Her apparent ability to gain access to private and confidential documentation is something that I will come back to later in this post.

What she didn’t know, and I didn’t tell her was that Rohan had actually approached me 2 months earlier, had advised of his ongoing legal problems with the GMC and had voluntarily agreed to be deselected.

The following day I did speak with Andrew about this, who in turn called Susanne Nundy. I also called Rohan, repeated the allegations, many of which he absolutely denied (and still does), and suggested that he should produce a full apology in order to end this matter.

At no time was her telephone call remarked to be ‘in confidence’. She wanted action and wanted it NOW. As a result there was a special NCC meeting, the outcome being that Rohan Kapur was suspended from the party, a decision I have to say I now regret.

With hindsight I should have stuck to my original line of ‘nothing to do with the party’, and I put this down to set-up #1. As with her post about Andrew Withers, there was no evidence, only her allegations and again she manages to conflate what are private matters with party business.

I would call this a set-up simply because Susanne Nundy has a history. Wherever there is a story of abuse by officials, especially when it relates to children or paedophilia, up pops a swathe of names including Anna Raccoon, Susanne Nundy or under her maiden name Susanne Cameron-Blackie , all ready to ‘assist’, yet strangely the outcome is never the one that those originally abused, or their campaigners envisaged. More often than not they are ripped apart, labelled as nutters and thrown to the pack in the manner we saw with her post about Andrew Withers yesterday. Its almost as if she is a professional Trojan Horse.

Susanne’s own career in the Lord Chancellor’s department is not necessarily what you imagine it was. Whilst she continually presents herself as a lawyer, she can call herself a lawyer only insomuch as she has a law degree, but I can find no records that she ever qualified as a solicitor or barrister and was never called to the bar. (if I am wrong perhaps she has some physical evidence to the contrary, such as certificates or photos that can be published).

No, Susanne Nundy was a ‘Lord Chancellor’s visitor’, as such she was little more than a glorified social worker, but with special powers.

The Lord Chancellor can appoint a Court of Protection visitor to a panel of special visitors or a panel of general visitors. These visitors replace the current Lord Chancellor’s visitors under Section 102 of the Mental Health Act 1983. To be eligible for appointment as a special visitor a person must be a registered medical practitioner or appear to the Lord Chancellor to have other suitable training or special knowledge. However, a general visitor does not need to have any particular medical qualifications.

Visitors have the power to carry out visits and produce reports as directed by the court or the public guardian. They have the power to examine and take copies of documents or records held by authorities that relate to the protected person, and also have the power to interview the protected person in private. Special visitors also have the powers to carry out medical examinations if necessary. The Code of Practice indicates that visitors have a role to play in investigating possible abuse and also to check on the general well-being of a person who lacks capacity.(source)

A lot of power, especially if the person concerned is slightly unstable (as per the Mental Health Act).

Susanne claims to have moved to France in 2005, either 5 years or 2 years after having left the Lord Chancellors office (depending on which of her versions you read), yet here is her LinkedIn profile showing her as a Lord Chancellors visitor (DCA) located in erm… Aquitaine, France. (It is worth noting that the DCA was only added after the Tony Blair shake-up of that department, with the Dept of Constitutional Affairs added to it in 2005), and it is my understanding that her career with the Lord Chancellors office came to an end when she put in a claim under the Mental Health Act for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and walked away with a cool £250,000 of taxpayers money in compensation (her original claim was reported to be £500,000).

That her investments in property with that compensation money have gone awry, leaving her in a parlous financial state must give cause to consider that doing ‘favours’ for the department is a financial motive worth considering.

That Andrew Withers is winning his battles where they should be won, in court, would not stop the more unscrupulous from using smear campaigns to discredit where the attempted legal avenues have been discovered to be littered with lies, perjury, forgeries and malfeasance.

It was after discovering these elements of her past that I perhaps wondered if she was still doing ‘favours’ for old colleagues. Consider that Rohan Kapur was also winning or at least holding his own in his legal battles with the GMC, how better to dispose of a thorn in their side than a public discrediting of him. Also take her post on the Hollie Greg campaign which was also beginning to gain traction, another public shredding from Anna Raccoon.

Earlier I referred to her access to private and confidential documentation, because in each case she seems to have obtained or at least had sight of private or confidential documentation that is certainly not in the public domain, and in the case of Hollie Greg documentation that was sealed, not even available to the family. Just how does Susanne Nundy gain access to such confidential documentation unless she still works for government, or it is being fed to her.

As others have said “let’s face it, there’s no more cruel a kick than the kick of a Trojan Horse”.

Never forget, that there are always multiple levels to politics. What the public see and read in the press and media is a very sanitised end presentation, what goes on in the background and in dark corners is what some of us have been dealing with and exposing every day for many years. We have always been aware that there would be attempts to destabilise the Libertarian Party, to stop it forming into a coherent political force in the same way using similar methods that were tried on UKIP in its early days, and the biggest beneficiary to that destabilisation would be the DCA as I have written about in the past.

Could Anna Raccoon really be a trojan horse for the DCA and other government departments? Because it’s certainly beginning to look like it from where I sit.

But please, all this information is in the public domain, so take your own time to look it up to satisfy yourselves that this is real, and to give you some further insight, here are some observations on the contradictions that are Anna Raccoon, from a black ops watcher, Blackwatchfrom September last year.

Susanne Nundy is just as baffling a proposition. For those unfamiliar with the story, Susanne Nundy is the name used by British Libertarian blogger, Anna Raccoon, more popularly known for her posts about the Madeleine McCann and Hollie Greig stories and a favourite of the Nbrado-run, Chaos Raptors website (who seem to have blocked my IP this week, from what I can gather).

Nundy and Greg Watkins are alleged to have co-managed a disinformation campaign around the Hollie Greig case by an equally dubious set of Greig supporters (the kind that give Andrew Marr all the amunition he needs to make sweeping generalisations)

Why did ‘Susanne Nundy’ or whoever she is – use the email addresscourtofprotection.co.uk?

The Court of Protection as it exists now, was set up by Jack Straw and New Labour in 2005 (created under the Mental Capacity Act 2005). In the Inexorable choices‘ post Nundy says she was in office in 2003 (just as Blair ditched the office of Lord Chancellor) and yet in an email she sent me yesterday, Raccoon insists she had resigned the office in 2000 (which I’m happy to forward to anyone who requests it). But even Chris Carter, her replacement in 2004, insists she was working at this time.

Interestingly the email address alleged to have ‘outed’ Anna Raccoon (and I use the term cautiously) was left on a website for Old Scholars at St Christopher’s School in Letchworth, Hertfordshire – an old and respected boarding school set up by Beatrice Ensor – a close friend of Fabian Socialist and Freemason, Annie Besant and sponsored by Helena Blavtasky’s Theosophical Society – a weird and slightly extreme religious group influenced by new age and Aryan mysticism (imagine David Icke with some serious political backers and a decent night’s sleep).

But all this sounds a bit too good to be true in my opinion: leaving a breadcrumb trail to some weird theosophical preparatory school with links to Freemasons and Fabian Socialism? Throw in a few references to the Lord Chancellor and working for the Court of Protection? No, something just doesn’t sit right with me. It’s all too neat. Like my Christmasses have all come early. Things like this don’t just fall into your lap so easily, do they?

On the otherhand, its seems unlikely that the email address was left deliberately (as breadcrumbs) as it appears as far back in the wayback records as January 2004 so she must have been using it around the time.

Why Nundy was using an email address that alluded to a governmental role but which clearly hadn’t been registered through any formal government department remains unclear (the domain name doesn’t have the expected TLD .gov.uk - like that of the Supreme Court, for instance).

A parking page for the courtofprotection.co.uk website from March 2003 suggests the original courtofprotection.co.uk site was set up and maintained in France.

The domain makes one appearance in 2003 and then disappears – so make what you will of the credibility of the site ro her claims.

I’m also finding it difficult to reconcile Susanne Nundy’s celebrated ‘Libertarian’ ideals with the idea of her working with such a crudely draconian, insidious and cheerfully Orwellian institution as the Court of Protection. I’ve seen her attempts to address this fairly awkward little paradox in her blog. She says it wasn’t an invention of ‘Nu Labour’ and Jack Straw – but that’s just being pedantic.

It had existed in one form or another for years, but New Labour extended its powers and its reach exponentially in 2005 (whilst simultaneously incapacitating the power of carers and relatives). It was rebranded, relaunched. According to a Daily Telegraph report, the Court of Protection’s expansion had been controversial’ not only for its extensive powers but also for the fact that almost all of its hearings take place in private‘.

My guess, is that like Shrimpton and Bennett the character going by the name of Nundy doesn’t know whether she’s extremely right or extremely left. However, I suppose the distribution of any ideal can be skewed and uneven on occasion. Justlook at the blogs she claims to read – they don’t get more skewed than that. If I was being pedantic (now heaven forbid) I’d say the miscellaneous nature of it made it look more like a webring or a linkfarm of sorts.

But what better way to manage opinion than by managing both sides?

Could Susanne Nundy really be a protector of paedophile rings inside government institutions as is alleged by some of Hollie Greig’s supporters? Was the use of her LinkedIn profile, the fake court of protection email address & website in France a prelude to something more sinister? Further discrepancies are investigated by BW in the comments.

Not too impressed with this ‘Anna Raccoon’, I have to say. She was tripping herself up left right and centre in emails we exchanged yesterday. One minute she was saying she hadn’t placed her name and email address on the St Christopher’s Old Scholars page – that someone else had – (susanne.nundy@courtofprotection.co.uk)the next she was saying she had given permission afterall (after I’d pointed out that I’d been in touch with David Curzons who manages the Old Scholars page and he said old scholars MUST request it themselves).

She says in her ‘Intimidation and cooercion‘ post that “the e-mail address given is not and has never been a genuine e-mail address.”

But if it was not a genuine email address: how could St Christophers contact her using that address to add her to the list as she told me yesterday?

She also says she never used the courtofprotection.co.uk address after retiring in 2000 but the domain is there in the wayback archives in 2003 – under construction in France – where she lives.

Raccoon’s site is down for ‘maintenance’ at the moment so I can well imagine she is altering some of her posts as we speak in the event the Office of the Public Guardian start looking more closely at her claims.

Here’s what she says in her ‘Inexorable choices‘ post:

“I worked in the Lord Chancellor?s Office the last time Labour (under Tony Blair) made one of their knee jerk attempts at reforming the constitution to suit themselves. Blair got up one morning and ?abolished? the Lord Chancellor. Chaos ensued.” – nb: this was 2003-2005.And here’s what Ms Nundy says in an email to me yesterday:

“I most certainly was not working as a Visitor after 2000. I let the domain lapse. I have no idea who re-registered it. I didn?t move to France until 2005 so the fact that it was someone in France has no suspicious connections with me.”And again, in a previous email:

“Mrs Nundy ceased to use the courtofprotection.co.uk address in 2000 when she retired from work. What has happened to it since then is of no interest to me, nor relevance.”Does she always talk about herself in the third person? Here’s another of Ms Nundy’s ‘out of body experiences’ (or travels in the third person narrative) – a rather flattering report she did about ‘the blogger’ Anna Raccoon. Herself by any other name.

She’s not lying exactly. She’s not telling the truth exactly. In one breath she says she retired in 2000 – and in another breath says she was working in the Lord Chancellor’s Office in 2003. That she’s been involved in this work seems certain in many respects but she seems to have lied about all the timings. Why? And how does one balance her propensity for lying with her devotion as a Quaker (anyone remember the ‘testimony of integrity’ and such like)?

Has Raccoon just been impersonating Ms Nundy? Sounds dumb, but who knows, given the lies thus far.

I shall leave you to draw your own conclusions.