‘The People’s Voice’ not so much for the people (#tpv # #ThePeoplesVoice #icke #holliegreig)

tpvspIn her programme, ‘Sonia Poulton – Live’ on ‘The People’s Voice’ channel, she recently had a guest by the name of Robert Green who spoke about an alleged abuse case in Scotland concerning a woman with Down’s syndrome called Hollie Greig.

Up until I watched the show I knew little of the accusations, only that someone alleged that there was a paedophile ring operating in Aberdeen which allegedly involved prominent members of the community, including police, the local sheriff, social services, medical staff, and others.

Watching the programme, I noticed there seemed to be a lot of inconsistencies in what Green was saying, and he didn’t give any real evidence of his claims. Something just didn’t seem right about the overall feel of the programme, so I started to take a look on the internet to try and find a little more information.

Surprisingly, most of what I found was repetition of the same story Green had relayed on the programme, even some of the same inconsistencies. A closer look revealed that most of the information was not based on any evidence whatsoever, and some of the connections made in the case on various websites were so tenuous I could not understand how an experienced journalist could not have had some serious doubts about the case, or asked Green some very hard questions.

After all, according to the promotional material of the streaming channel it is supposed to be unbiased, give all sides a right to their say, and ask the ‘hard questions’. It seems that all of those admirable journalistic claims did not apply to this episode.

I am not going to go into detail about the case, and all I can say is look for yourself. There is far more REAL evidence to cast serious doubt on Green’s account of the story than there is REAL evidence to back up Green’s claims – it is a total sham as far as I can see.

As I was looking around, I thought I would have a look at Sonia Poulton’s Twitter feed – and there was revealed just how bias the report on her programme was.

The Twitter conversation (or whatever it is called) involved Sonia Poulton and a user called ‘Hollie Greig Hoax’ who are apparently some of the people accused by Green of being involved in the allegations of a paedophile ring.

It was certainly an interesting read. Apparently, Sonia Poulton has refused to allow the accused to reply! It sounds more like the a modern case of the Pendle Witches than fair reporting and allowing all sides to have their say. She also stated that Green has ‘incredible evidence’ – now does that mean ‘unbelievable’ and difficult to believe, or does it mean ‘marvellous’ – look up the definition .

A little further digging revealed more about how Sonia Poulton treated the ‘accused’ in this case. Apparently, after Sonia Poulton refused to engage any further in the Twitter ‘conversation’, the ‘accused’ sent her a Skype request – which she also refused. If that were not enough, apparently Sonia Poulton hung-up when she was telephoned to discuss the report and the ‘accused’ right to appear on her programme. You can read about it on the Hollie Greig Hoax website.

When I started to look into Green a little bit further, it seems he has been warned many times to stop spreading his defamatory claims, even being imprisoned for his behaviour during which he sent letters to neighbours of the 22 people he accused of being involved stating they were paedophiles. The reason he has been warned is that he has NO evidence to make such claims! Incredible that he just doesn’t get the message, and even MORE incredible that supposed journalists don’t check their information before broadcasting Green’s claims.

It seems Green only likes journalists who will buy-in to his lies.

Green approached respected BBC investigative journalist Mark Daly, who has been involved in many of the biggest journalistic exposures of corruption and child abuse in the UK.

According to Green, a programme was commissioned by the BBC and was ‘pulled’ during the last week of production. This is yet another blatant lie by Green. After looking at Green’s version of events and the so-called ‘evidence’ he gave the reporter, the BBC decided they were not interested.

In a reply to Green, Mark Daly stated “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”

There is an interesting interview with Mark Daly about Green and his claims on YouTube.

So why on earth would Sonia Poulton think that anything Robert Green had to say in his accusations was true without checking first. This man has a long history of being unreliable at the very least.

‘The People’s Voice’? I don’t think so – more like a ‘channel’ to support ridiculous and tenuous conspiracy theories bandied about by anyone.

I had though (and hoped) that ‘The People’s Voice’ was capable of delivering what it said it could, but obviously it can’t.

The programming seems to be rapidly turning into a minority channel for followers of Icke and the usual conspiracy brigade, rather than a credible source of reliable and unbiased information. It is a shame, because there are some subjects that do warrant our attention, but are mixed in with other ‘stuff’.

Mainstream media is certainly not perfect and seems biased. But at least there may be a semblance of reliable information that you can make your own mind up about through intelligent analysis and research. I can only describe ‘The People’s Voice’ as an alternative version of the same but with more sensationalism and misdirection. Perhaps that’s why some of Icke’s celebrity chums didn’t get together and finance it.

I certainly won’t be watching. I did donate in the foolish belief that this was going to be something that was really worthwhile supporting – I have since cancelled. I would rather give my cash to people I meet who deserve it rather than fund this amateurish propaganda machine.

Follow @martynjsymons

Feel free to leave your comments below. Comments have to be approved – but we don’t censor alternative opinions and information – we just don’t like spam.


23 thoughts on “‘The People’s Voice’ not so much for the people (#tpv # #ThePeoplesVoice #icke #holliegreig)

  1. Green has been trying to cash in on these lies for years through various mediums. He has refused every request by those he accused for a public debate. He has got a lot to hide. That is why he hides from those who have nothing to hide.

    • Who is Roger Green?

      In what way has he been trying to cash in? Specifically ? How has he made any money from this?

      What has he got to hide, specifically?

      Seems like you are making a lot of accusations with ZERO evidence.

  2. Anne got back some of her inheritance thanks to a lawyer through Stuart Usher,the reason,because she had been swindled,FACT

    At on point she couldn’t buy Hollie a ice cream,she and ROBERT Green have made no money and told the same account for years.

    If you wee going to make up names ,why make up wrong names?

    • Have you got any evidence/proof she was swindled? Of course not. Because you are a troll – how do we know? We have the technology and you are too stupid.

      If names were made up then of course they would be wrong names – or is that too obvious for you to understand!!

      So are you going to reveal your real identity and enter into a sensible adult debate, or are you going to continue to hide behind someone else’s hijacked identity (which is illegal by the way – and we have your details) because you are too much of a slimy yellow coward to enter into normal human behaviour – or is it because you KNOW you are wrong? You should also get at least a basic education and learn to spell correctly.

      Anything you want to discuss? Like the weather in Glasgow?

      For any visitors, we would like to inform you that this idiot troll is posting under the name of Job Stevenson with the name ‘js42uk’ (as you can see from the comments they have made). We have verified that this is not the real Jon Stevenson.

  3. You mean hide my IP like I did before from Virgin eh?

    I wanted to see if you would fall for it and you did.

    As for spelling thats a bit rich ,Roger Green eh?

    Nice to know you are trying to harvest IP addresses,very liberal of you lullzzzzzz.

    Stuart usher told me about Anne being swindled and getting compo,dont you ever check your facts?

    Whats your real name,Jon Pyrite eh.

    • Unfortunately, because someone has said something it doesn’t make it true, fact, and certainly not evidence. Would you believe someone if they told you the moon was a giant alien base – you probably do:)

      IP addresses? Noooo – much,much deeper:)

      We only know of pirates – not Pyrite – like Black Beard, Jack Sparrow, Black Bart and so on.

    • Instead of playing silly games, IF you have any REAL evidence – show it. Because so far, all we have seen and heard are people making claims with no hard evidence to back them up. It would be interesting to see information which is substantially robust enough to consider there is any credibility to the claims Hollie was abused by some paedophile ring.

      There is a reasonable challenge which must be easy to take up. Send us the evidence.

      • What do you call 13000 UK pounds on compensation for the criminal injury of RAPE of a child.

        Is that not a good place to start Martyn?

      • Perhaps this is where there is some confusion over why Hollie was paid an award.

        If you look at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority procedures for considering cases, then it is really clear why they decided to make this payment. It does not mean that an offence occurred or that there was a perpetrator of any offence.

        It is not like a court of law where an offence has to be proven and a perpetrator found or convicted. Taken from the CICA: “We decide cases on what is called the ‘balance of probabilities’. This means that our decision is based on what is more likely to have happened than not have happened. We do not need to have something proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.”

        It seems that the award was made primarily because of the forensic medical report of Dr Frances Kelly which stated there was evidence of previous penetration but there was no evidence of how this occurred, by whom if anyone other than Hollie, or the time period over which this may have occurred. The investigating officer and others at the time were of the opinion that Hollie had possibly been the victim of penetrative sexual abuse at some time in the past. This has never been proven or a perpetrator identified.

        So the award Hollie received was not because a crime had taken place, but that the CICA considered that on balance it was more probable than not.

        There seems to have been this fantasy that Hollie was awarded £13,000 because something definite happened (which is understandable) going around the internet propagated by Green as ‘evidence’. IF people took the time to look into these things themselves and not just take other people’s word for their claims then perhaps the whole real story would emerge. Everything is this post is verifiable EVIDENCE – not conjecture, presumption, or opinion, and you can find it for yourself quite easily.

  4. We see you are moderating comments now Martyn.

    What do you call £13000 criminal compensation for the
    RAPE of a wee girl?

    The cops think she was abused so Does Mark Daly and several professionals,whit are you wanting polaroids?

  5. Perhaps this is where there is some confusion over why Hollie was paid an award.
    Lullluzzz and this from a man that believes in the supernatural yet demands proof from Hollie,who has told the same story for years ,who has no motive to lie and has evidence and proof she was criminally assaulted.

  6. What on earth are you going on about? Perhaps you found a difference because you have used another identity – which may or may not be yours of course Malcolm.

    How can you possibly come to the conclusion that Mark Daly thinks that? He went head to head with Green on a radio station (link is in the article) over the false allegations Green was making about Daly and the BBC! He basically accused Green of making things up for his own purposes – get a grip and do your homework.

    I am sure she has – no one is questioning that, or that she has any motive – but others possibly may have and could be using her for their own disgusting agendas – who knows? Where is the proof of that? Probably there is none – sound familiar?.

    The fact is, none of us like scum who abuse children, but when accusations are made they have to be made with REAL evidence to back them. Otherwise we have ridiculous situations where morons start accusing everyone and anyone – like in Plymouth years ago where local idiots started attacking paediatricians because they were too thick to understand the difference between them and paedophiles.

    So we are still resorting to personal stuff are we? While we are on the subject, Being an Icke disciple you must believe that reptiles rule the world and the moon is a secret alien base – really? Or perhaps you don’t think that and pick and choose what you believe Icke preaches – that sounds familiar too – just like the Hollie case.

    Then there is your belief in astral bodies – well you must do because you share information about them – what’s the difference? A bit hypocritical of you don’t you think?

    Want to get more personal? Of course you don’t. So keep to the matter in hand.

    Regards to A**** I will stop there. Have a good weekend:)

  7. Personal yea no problem Martyn,you who started with ip logging ,giving false locations

    As to Hollie case the evidence is there Martyn ,the fact you CHOOSE to ignore tells everyone what they need to know .

    Astral bodies ,haha I don’t share anything, I mock you for your stupid non provable beliefs.

    If you look at our blog we said no one should have been named,it was the Hoax teams Greg Lance Watkins that put the names up, and still does ,illegally

    The fact that morons inhabit the UK should paedophilia never be mentioned ,I mean whats to stop them getting mixed up again,astral bodies?

    here is an interesting thought though

    A tale told too much – the paediatrician vigilantes

    Press Gazette
    11 May 2012

    Printer-friendly version

    This piece appeared in Press Gazette magazine two years ago. We republish it here after the issue of a paediatrician wrongly being attacked in the wake of a 2000 News of the World campaign reared its head again at the Leveson Inquiry. As this piece reveals, a fairly minor graffiti incident became the source of a pervasive urban myth.

    Ten years on it is time the strange tale of the paediatrician confused with a paedophile was finally put to bed, says Brendan O’Neill, who reported on the orginal story for the BBC

    Ten years ago this month, persons unknown – probably teenage scallies, according to local police – daubed the word ‘Paedo’ on the home of a paediatrician in Gwent in south Wales.

    They could never have known that their daft antics would become one of the most hotly discussed, frequently revisited, distorted and mythologised crimes of modern times.

    It was 28 August in the year 2000. Yvette Cloete, a 30-year-old South African working as a trainee paediatrician in Gwent, returned home to find the word ‘Paedo’ painted on her front door.

    She was upset, naturally. She informed the police and later decided to move, to try to find ‘somewhere more upmarket to live”, she told the BBC. She gave a couple of media interviews in which she presumed that the grafitti artists had confused the word ‘paediatrician’ with ‘paedophile’ and described herself as a ‘victim of ignorance”.

    The local police never caught the culprits, but when I interviewed Gwent Chief Inspector Andrew Adams, who was central to the case, for the BBC in 2006, he told me ‘youngsters’probably did it – ‘someone in the 12-17 age bracket. There was no big mob”, he said. And that was it.

    ‘Stupid kids in Gwent do something stupid.’ Unpleasant for Ms Cloete, undoubtedly, but a tiny crime in the scheme of things.

    And yet over the past decade, what ought to have been a footnote in the history of Welsh misdemeanours has been turned into such a constant cultural reference point, has been injected with so much phoney meaning, that it has become distended beyond recognition. It has been transformed by opinion-formers into proof that some communities are so dumb, morally bereft and easily swayed by paedophile-baiting tabloids like the News of the World that they end up confusing a good woman who helps children with evil men who rape them.

    The 10-year-old, thoughtless actions of one, two, maybe a handful of teens are unfairly used to indict entire swathes of Britain. As is frequently the case when relatively minor events are turned into massive morality tales, the facts of what happened 10 years ago are continually twisted. It’s very rare to read an accurate account.

    The Evening Standard in April this year, in a piece about the overblown paedophile panic, said: ‘There has been a spate of attacks by dumb-headed vigilantes on paediatricians in the mistaken belief they are paedophiles.’mA spate? Melanie Phillips has made the same mistake. In a piece about anti-paedophile hysteria in the Daily Mail in December 2001, she asked: ‘Who can forget the targeting of an innocent children’s doctor in Portsmouth by a populace too ignorant and enraged to recognise the difference between paedophile and paediatrician?”

    Well, it’s hard to forget something that never happened. There was no attack on a paediatrician in Portsmouth. As is frequently the case when relatively minor events are turned into massive morality tales, the facts of what happened 10 years ago are continually twisted – in Gwent, people! – it was not carried out by the ‘populace’ but probably by a small group of teenagers.

    Portsmouth pops up again and again in the harping back to the Great Paedo Graffiti Crime of feverish millennial Britain. In the Independent in 2002, filmmaker Roger Graef wrote of the ‘Portsmouth estate’where a ‘paediatrician [was] attacked by shouting crowds of mothers and children’– managing to get not only the place wrong, but also the details of what occurred in 2000: there were no ‘shouting crowds’ in Gwent, there was no ‘attack’, at least not against the person, and no mothers with their children were involved.

    The reason Portsmouth is fingered as the place where people are so thick that they shout at/throw stones at/beat up paediatricians (take your pick from these fantasy scenarios) is because in the year 2000 there were some noisy anti-paedophile protests by mothers in Portsmouth, and these did coincide with a NoW campaign to have sex offenders ‘named and shamed’. And in the caliginous commentariat imagination, these protests have become intertwined with a minor graffiti incident that occurred hundreds of miles away, giving rise to a totally made-up story about gangs of mums, kids and vigilantes, their fingers still stained with the ink of the News of the World, gathering with torches and twisted intentions outside the home of a paediatrician.

    Even esteemed BBC world affairs editor John Simpson has fallen into the trap. ‘What kind of newspaper is the News of the World encouraging people to go out on the streets and beat up paedophiles and then they end up beating up a paediatrician?’ he asked in 2006.

    In 2003, a newspaper in Northern Ireland said: ‘Portsmouth became famous when paedophile-hunting locals chased a paediatrician down the street.”

    The Irish Independent has claimed that in the ‘summer of 2001’ (actually it was 2000) a ‘couple of newspapers so fuelled the mob’ (actually there was no mob in Gwent) ‘that a paediatrician was burned out of her home in Gwent’ (actually she wasn’t).

    The truth is that Ms Cloete was not even at home when the youngsters wrote that five-letter word on her door.

    There is a censorious instinct at play here: what some observers are explicitly saying is that we can’t have an open, potentially heated discussion about paedophilia, child-sex crimes, Jon Venables, Sarah’s Law (which is back in the news), or anything else child-related and controversial, because some people might fly off the handle and burn down the house of the nearest paediatrician. But the anti-mob crusaders have simply replaced one prejudice with another – where some tabloid readers see paedophiles everywhere, some broadsheet readers see dictionary-deprived, flame-wielding, underclass lunatics everywhere. Both outlooks are based on prejudice rather than fact.

    Ten years on, isn’t it time we put the paedo-paediatrician morality tale to bed?


    NONE of this does not mean Hollie wasn’t abused and it doesn’t mean Hollies case is a Hoax.

    Who would hoax this for 10 years

    Grow up son.

  8. Agreed then – very good.

    The problem I have is that the so-called ‘evidence’ presented so far is small snippets of information – most of which has been taken out of context. Showing one paragraph of a document that can not be seen in the context of the whole document means nothing at all.

    What someone says or has an opinion on has no meaning whatsoever unless backed up with solid evidence. Yet when they are asked to present solid evidence none is forthcoming or we get smoke screens.

    Case in point is Daly,.The accusations of Green are directly challenged by Daly himself – head to head. There is even a link in the post where you can hear the man speaking for himself with Green present – how much more solid can evidence become.

    Even former supporters of the Hollie Greig case are having doubts as they start to do their own independent research and discovering the truth for themselves.As someone I have heard describe it – ‘Green’s story has more holes in it than Swiss cheese’ – which really says it all. And that person used to be a strong supporter of the campaign.

    It is not for us to convince anyone – if the evidence were there then people would rally behind the cause – we certainly would. But the fact is that the evidence is not there – only the opinions (many of which are distorted when one actually gets to look at it) of those involved. Even some of the ‘evidence’ they tout about is based on information based on their opinion as supplied to a third party – and is stated as such in the report..

    As with Daly and others who have approached this from an objective viewpoint, there is nothing of any substance to back-up the story of Anne Greig and Green – nothing at all so far. No wonder Daly and his team wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole – they did their homework and looked into the claims in-depth. Daly is not one to shy away from a sensitive story.

    Surely in ten years there would have been something that was definitive proof of Green’s and others claims and which would show the public that there really was a case to answer. So far there hasn’t been.

    If there is real evidence – then NOW is the time for people in the campaign to present it, because as time goes on more and more real evidence is becoming available which contradicts their claims.

    When looking at anything such as this case it is extremely important to consider evidence from an objective viewpoint from all sides, but there seems to be some kind of collective blindness based in ignorance and prejudice which has taken over from common sense and rationality in the campaign camp – a mass hysteria of group dynamics that takes focus away from truth.

    I would think that for Hollie’s sake it would be reasonable to conclude this matter one way or another, so why are those involved in the campaign not doing that if there is evidence? It makes no sense.

    If the claims of the campaigners were proven we would certainly be behind it 100%, but they are nowhere near, and until those claims are proven in some way we will not support a campaign that is only based on opinions, misinformation, and downright deception (as with Green’s claims about the BBC etc.).

      • absolutely, I cannot believe, with all the bullying through cyberspace that she has not been arrested..

        However the truth will out and all her poison will come back to haunt her.

      • She seems incredibly narcissistic from what I have seen of her – as are others who seem to maintain popularity in the ‘truth movement’ – most of whom wouldn’t know ‘truth’ if it slapped them in the face and are more than happy to promote lies and disinformation.

        The disturbing part is that people blindly follow these people without question and trust their motives without doing any of their own research. It is almost like a mass hysteria that defies all common sense.

        As for considering all sides of a story – that has been proven to be a lie. Poulton refusing to consider alternative views to her own, Icke making sure that any comments which challenge his views are deleted on social media and the posters banned. Ridiculous!

        Perhaps it’s because they know they are manipulators. I have NEVER heard or seen any of them actually DISCUSS their views – they just talk at people.

        It is a shame, because change is needed in this world, and if they used their resources for the greater good rather than their own ego and financial wealth, they may actually make a difference.

        As they are, all they do is become popular within their small bubble and do not serve humanity or facilitate real change at all.

        As you said, all this stuff will come back to bite them in their backsides – and no doubt they will claim some kind of conspiracy – anyone else’s fault except their own – classic psychopathic/narcissistic behaviour.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.