A Matter of Public Interest

Dear HollieDemandsJustice.org,   Regarding: MARK DALY

I have received what appears to be a final reply from Mark Daly, a BBC reporter (therefore, paid exclusively by the public) who was originally investigating the case of HOLLIE GREIG as a matter of public interest. 

You will see from the first two sets of emails, between Robert Green & Mark Daly, that all seems to be going well. However, it was after the second email from Mr Daly to Robert Green, that Robert received a call from Mark Daly, stating that he and his team had been threatened with loosing their jobs and warned off the case, indeed, ordered to drop the case and even ordered not to investigate any other cases of alleged paedophilia in Scotland. 

Mr Daly did not give the origin of the alleged threat.  I was incensed by this when I first heard about it and sent a very, very strongly worded complaint to the BBC – which, as is the case in complaining to the BBC about anything, eventually leads to nothing.

Recently, I decided to contact Mr Daly, to try and get the full picture from him directly.  Easier said than done!  Further down the thread of emails below, you will find my recent correspondence with Mr Daly.  He claims that, once the BBC had decided to drop the investigation, because, as he states, he did not believe Anne after he and his team had visited them both in person, the BBC continued to investigate for a short while. 

When I asked why that was, he said it was to ensure that the BBC was correct in what they were planning to do by dropping the case. Unfortunately, Mr Daly will not divulge the nature on the further investigation at the public’s expense, nor the evidence that the BBC uncovered that allegedly justifies even further his decision to drop the case. 

This is at odds with normal journalistic practice, as most journalists would be only too happy to show just how they caught someone lying, especially if it meant their work had uncovered even more evidence, as this would almost certainly guarantee them even work in the future.

However, Mr Daly expects the public to simply accept his word on this, even though he openly states that Anne Greig lied – a serious allegation to make if it cannot be backed with evidence!  Therefore, the Licence-fee-paying British people, are now being asked to take his word for it, that evidence exists, without question and just more on.  Sorry, Mr Daly, it doesn’t work like that!

It appears that, rather than present facts to support his position, he would rather insult the enquiring public by calling their concerns over the most serious gross injustices: ‘campaign fantasies… based on a tissue of lies’.  Strong word for a man not willing to support them with evidence… and a man who was also in possession of documented medical evidence to support Hollie’s claims.  British public… YOU PAID FOR THAT INSULT!  Other victims of abuse, you ALSO paid for that!

There are a number of points which Mr Daly neglected to address in either of his replies to me.  One was that he told both Anne & Robert (who was also present for the five and a half hours interview) at the end of the interview, quite categorically, that the next thing that they could expect was to hear a TV crew who would be coming to film them and that the programme would be broadcast in late August or early September – no ifs, buts or maybes. 

Now why would Mr Daly state such a thing to Anne Greig if he was doubtful of her sincerity at that time?  And why would he state that in front of witnesses if it wasn’t true?

Another point that Mr Daly forgot to address, was to explain why it was that, after he had called Robert, on 10th June, and told him that he and the team had been warned off, he then changed tack and started to follow the line taken by corrupt elements in this case, that we are all very aware of now.  With all due respect to Anne, it has to be said (unfortunately time & time again), that whatever Anne may think, say or do now, has absolutely no impact or relevance on the established facts of this case!!!  The BBC may as well ask me what I think for all the difference it will make, which would be none! 

It is the alleged crimes committed against HOLLIE (verified by all the named experts) that is important, nothing else.  Mr Daly has those documents and, until the call to Robert, he was quite rightly regarded them as strong and a firm basis for the BBC documentary going ahead!

Absolutely no opinion that Anne may hold or disclose has anything to do with the facts of the case whatsoever.  Why is this so hard for experienced (and in Daly’s case, decorated) reporters to comprehend?

There could be no credible reason for the BBC to drop the story, therefore, based on the FACTS.  It is Hollie`s credibility that is paramount, not Anne`s.  All the unchallenged medical documents and D.I. Iain Alley`s statement should have been quite sufficient for a programme to go ahead.  Mr Daly had and still has them all.

Naturally, as a man who prefers evidence, I remain totally unconvinced by the system’s unwillingness to prove what it says or place the adequate pressure on the Police to investigate the allegations.  My support for the case, and especially for Robert Green, remains 100% rock-solid and unshakable

Surely if Mr Daly is correct and the BBC has in its possession incriminating evidence which clearly shows that Anne Greig lied to them, then handing that evidence over to the Police will bring the entire matter to a close, once and for all, with her arrest and charges for wasting Police time?  No?  Why haven’t the BBC done this as they appear, via Mark Daly, to be in a position to do this? 

Is it because what Robert Green said happened between him and Mark Daly over the phone was actually true and that the BBC have got themselves caught up in something that they are still trying to get out off?  I wonder?


Mark Daly’s email to Robert Green, dated 25th April 2009:


i received the documents this morning and have read most of them already. I will bring them into the office on Monday and discuss it with my boss. As far as I am concerned, I am making a programme about this. I need to have it signed off by management of course, but am confident that will happen.
Please keep me appraised of any press, tv or otherwise you plan to do.
It is of course my preference you do none, but i understand anne needs to pay the bills.
I feel i can really do something with this story and would view a confrontation with the alleged abusers a priority. i will talk to you both on monday.
till then

Robert Green’s email to Mark Daly, dated 25th April 2009:

Hello Mark,
Thank you so much for your message. I read it out to Anne and she was thrilled. She wanted me to tell you that no matter what the outcome when you ask for authorisation to go ahead, she is so grateful for your efforts, patience and understanding in listening to her story.
I shall be around most of the time on Monday, although Tuesday would be more difficult, as I`m on air with a live show in the morning, followed by a journey to London where I`ll be representing my other clients in the Royal Courts of Justice again at ten on Wednesday morning.
Anne and I only want to deal with you as far as TV is concerned, although as you know, Anne has been approached by various newspapers/magazines.
She has also received a call from Shropshire Police, who have been asked to talk to her by Grampian Police. This procedure was supposed to have started in January. Something seems to have galvanised the police into action!

As I mentioned, we won`t be involved with any other TV network and Anne or I will let you know about any other media approaches we might have, as well as information about contacts from any other groups.

Finally, I was very pleased that Amanda Mills is prepared to talk to you. I think you will find her another good and valuable interviewee and Anne and Hollie have a very high regard for her.
Best wishes,

Mark Daly’s email to Robert Green, dated 27th April 2009:

Having thought about it over the weekend, I think that you should try hold off on ALL media, just until Wednesday. By that time I should be able to confirm if we have a commission to make a programme or not.
It may harm my chances of getting the nod if there are concerns about the story appearing elsewhere. If by Wednesday I still haven’t got an answer for you, then by all means go ahead with your plans. However, I am certain that if you kept your powder dry, when the time was right (ie the time of broadcast, your currency would be higher, and I would be able to put you on touch with the right people (a contact I trust who is very experienced  at this sort of thing) and I have no doubt that there would be some tempting offers.   I’m sorry to add confusion to these matters  but I know what the Panorama editor is like and if he sees his story splashed all over the papers, he is less likely to commission. I need not tell you that if getting the story and the issue is your priority, there can be no greater vehicle that a prime time current affairs show on BBC1.
The rest will follow.   
all the best    

Ian McFerran’s email to Mark Daly, dated 22nd July 2012:

Dear Mr Daly,

You will recall your email correspondence between yourself and Robert Green, back in 2009, regarding the case of HOLLIE GREIG. 
I refer specifically to the emails dated: 25th April 2009 and 27th April 2009, regarding you being in possession of the relevant documentation about the case and, having read them, your intention to make a BBC documentary about this case.

I am publicly seeking your permission to publish those emails for public consumption.  Please confirm you are in agreement for this to occur.  If you are not in agreement, please state why.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McFerran – supporter of the campaign ‘Justice for Hollie Greig’

Ian McFerran’s SECOND email to Mark Daly, dated 24th July 2012:

Dear Mr Daly,

I note you have not replied.  I assume this is due to you seeking legal advise, as my email below did not generate an ‘out of office’ automated response and was not bounced back to me with a standard message indicating that it could not be delivered.

Therefore, if I do not hear from you by this coming WEDNESDAY 25th July 2012 with a valid reason for refusing permission (not that permission is required as the emails are not protectively marked) then emails in question will be published.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McFerran

Mark Daly’s email to Ian McFerran, dated 24th July 2012:

Dear Ian,

I’m happy to clear a few things up for you Ian. I have never denied that a provisional commission was given to make a programme about disabled people’s access to justice, and I wanted Hollie’s case to be a central case study, as can be clearly seen by the emails you are referring to.

It was on the basis of a dossier of initial info that was sent to me by Robert/Anne that I thought there was a strong story there.

However, it was straight after my first (and only) visit to Anne and Robert that we immediately decided to drop the story. On that visit we were given the full access to info that we had requested. But more importantly, on hearing Anne’s story, backed up by Robert, we realised that not only would it be impossible to prove the allegations, but we didn’t believe them. Some further investigation by us revealed that a series of Anne’s claims were untrue. So we dropped the story. Simple as that.

I am writing this to you to give you some background. I do not give permission to publish anything, but my and the BBC’s account of what went on was given in public on radio (The Tony Legend show) and is available for all.

Mark Daly

Ian McFerran’s email to Mark Daly, dated 24th July 2012:

Dear Mr Daly,

Interesting response.  I remind you that I do not require permission to publish.  However, given what you have said, I will delay publication for the following reason…

You stated that you and only you visited (and presumably interviewed) Anne & Hollie and immediately thereafter decided to drop the case completely because you could not prove their claims and also because you did not believe them.  You also stated that, after the decision to drop the case had been made, you (the BBC) conducted further investigations, which established Anne was not telling the truth. 

May I ask for answers to the following three questions, please?…

What form did your further investigations take?
When did those/that investigation(s) take place?
Why did you conduct further investigations, given the BBC had already taken the decision not to continue with the case – what prompted you to continue?

I also would now have to ask you, the BBC, to please provide supporting evidence of the results of the investigation by the BBC (at the public’s expense), along with an explanation as to why this additional investigation and the established evidence – that presumably support the BBC’s view that Anne Greig was lying – was not made public knowledge or even passed to Robert Green?

I shall allow you time to respond in full to this reply, giving until 5pm on Monday 30th July 2012 for these points to be addressed in full.
Please note, the emails I originally referred to WILL be published at that point, as there is, so far, no lawful reason not to.  Your desire for them not to be published is not supported with anything to explain why you hold that view.  However, the provision of the evidence you mentioned in your reply, along with a clearer justification as to why the BBC investigated something that it had no intention of pursuing, will, no doubt, help to put your previous emails in their proper context.  Thereby, causing you no difficulty.

I look forward to hearing from you on or before 5pm on Monday 30th July 2012.

Yours sincerely,
Ian McFerran    

Mark Daly’s email to Ian McFerran, dated 24th July 2012:


I have no compunction to get involved with your campaign’s fantasies, which I believe are based on a tissue of lies.

However, I will answer your questions. I didn’t visit Anne and Robert alone. I was with colleagues.

I decided immediately after the visit that there were huge problems with the story, and knew it was going to be impossible to carry the story forward. However, in the interests of thoroughness, I spent another few days on the story, to make sure we were correct in dropping it.

I’m not going to go through with you what I found, because I have done so in public, as already stated. Do your research Ian. All my answers to all of these questions have been given live on air. You can find it all on you tube I believe.

I can be of no more assistance to you Ian, because I have grave concerns that the campaign you support is orchestrated by liars and frauds, and, inadvertently or not, is submitting an extremely vulnerable family to an entirely different, but serious type of abuse.

Mark Daly

12 thoughts on “A Matter of Public Interest

  1. So, Anne and Robert are lying?

    Thanks for that Mr Daly.

    And what about the medical evidence from all the Doctors?

    Are they lying as well?

    Salmond and Cameron both know about Hollie’s case and both are complicite in covering it up…. so no surprises that the BBC is following the Government line and LYING itself about Hollie’s case.

    By calling others LIARS while willfully ignoring the medical evidence Mr Daly is simply proving that he himself is a LIAR.


  2. At the risk of stating the obvious, I’m finding a ‘trend’ is developing in respect of the Hollie Greig case. It seems to me, that any official department/body that gets involved in this case, no matter how small their role is to begin with, seem to get their knickers in a twist and end up losing all credibility when they are shown to have acted in a way that is anything other than honourable and honest.

    That might sound obvious, as I said, but I am still baffled as to why people (after all, that’s all we’re ultimately dealing with here) can’t simply do the right thing – if they have nothing to hide? Why can’t people do what they are paid to do? If they can’t do that without risking losing their jobs, why can’t they act from their conscience and still do the right thing, then leave their job with still with their honour and dignity intact? Are their bank accounts so much more important to them than the suffering of another human being?


  3. You may not be aware, but former President of the Family DIVISION – Sir Mark Potter’s SON is a FORMER JOURNALIST FOR THE BBC!!!

    In accordance with chancery Guidelines, when a Barrister is sworn in as a Judge THEY AGREE NEVER to return to give advice for monetary means…. THAT IS PART OF THE AGREEMENT in becoming a Judge (hence why so many retire after serving their time as a Judge)…. In JUNE 2011, (over one year AFTER Sir Mark retired from the Bench) he sat on another case as an APPEAL JUDGE and denied the family the right of Appeal. He would have done this, KNOWING IT WAS ILLEGAL and he was, therefore, NOT IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION (he would no have been protected by IMMUNITY

  4. CONTINUED….. (he would not have been protected by IMMUNITY as Judges are in the course of their administration to Justice.

    THANK GOODNESS SIR MARK POTTER WAS not put in a position of responsibility for the ‘phone hacking’ enquiry.


    Phone-hacking inquiry: who will judge the police?

    PM’s desire for a sitting judge means casting beyond supreme court for candidate to head probe into police investigation


    Joshua Rozenberg
    Joshua Rozenberg
    guardian.co.uk, Monday 11 July 2011 14.00 BST
    Jump to comments (…)

    David Cameron wants the phone-hacking inquiry to be headed by a judge and has asked the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, above, to find the right candidate. Photograph: Ian Nicholson/PA

    Who will be appointed to head the inquiry into how the police investigated the phone-hacking scandal?

    The prime minister promised on Friday that witnesses would be questioned by a “judge under oath”, which suggests that the inquiry will be set up under the Inquiries Act 2005.

    That legislation requires a senior member of the judiciary to be consulted before a serving judge is appointed. We learned at the weekend that Lord Judge, the lord chief justice, had been consulted. From this we may infer that the judge will come from the court of appeal, or a lower court, rather than from the UK supreme court.

    This makes sense. The supreme court is understaffed. Judges from the UK’s highest court – such as Lord Saville and Lord Hutton – have not proved notable successes at running inquiries.

    I would expect the appointment to be at the level of the court of appeal rather than the high court. But those courts are also too busy to spare a judge for what might be a year or more.

    So Lord Judge’s first instinct would be to offer the prime minister a retired judge. David Cameron is unlikely to accept the two former judges suggested by Geoffrey Robertson QC on Friday, Lord Hoffmann and Sir Stephen Sedley. As Robertson acknowledges, the ex-law lord and the former appeal judge have already expressed their views on the issues to be investigated. Far better to go for somebody who has kept his powder dry.

    That might just count against Sir Mark Potter, president of the high court family division until last year, who spoke as recently as last Friday at a conference in Oxford on “justice, the media and popular will”. But Potter, who has had plenty of dealings with the media over the years and whose son was once a BBC journalist, would still be an excellent person to lead the inquiry.

  5. A ‘Lord Judge’ ALSO sat on a particular family’s case!!! (I thought there could only be ONE LORD JUDGE) – so either the Judiciary stinks from the inside out (which would be no surprise) – or THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE ‘fraudulantly’ posing as a ‘Lord Judge’ (or using that title to ‘rubber stamp’ fake Court Orders).

    mmm – the plot thickens… ALL cases are inter-twined – that is a certainty……..

    As for the Above ‘gentleman’ claiming Anne is a LIAR – SHAME ON YOU! NO MOTHER WOULD LIE about such a thing and from what little I know of this case, YOU CANNOT change FACTUAL EVIDENCE – the truth is the truth, is the truth! FULL STOP!

    GOD BLESS ANNE AND HOLLIE. GOD BE WITH YOU BOTH AND PROTECT YOU FROM THE VILE, EVIL ONES IN THIS WORLD… ROBERT / IAN MORE POWER TO YOU (and not the sort that is and has been wilfully abused and breached by the evil ones).l THEY CAN KNOCK YOU, BUT NEVER LET THEM ‘keep you down’….. (as in a boxing ring!).

  6. Of course every official body in the country will be fully instructed to drop this story like a hot potato. It is not by chance that for decades this horrendous abuse has gone on unexposed. When Satanic Panic came out, it was 100% accurate. The government bodies and media moved mountains to make the public believe it was all nonsense, people were only too happy to take that on board, as who wants to believe that something so awful could be happening within our society daily. I can think of two Scottish politicians daughters, who publically said they had been raped by a paedophile ring, both were accused of false memory syndrome. The dominos are all put in place for when these Survivors speak out, one day and I hope it is sooner rather than later, they will be believed and the truth will set us all free.

  7. It is concerning that the BBC are employing so called journalists who are corruptible and have an inability to search out the truth in a case, no matter where it leads them and instead bow to vested interests?

    Thereby, BBC Scotland ends up with B rate journalists who are incapable of separating propaganda from the facts……..?

    Quite outrageous!

    Before long the Scottish Public may decide to refuse to pay the TV tax, due to the BBC failing to uphold their charter?

    JC x

  8. I believe that within all people there is a spark of love and truth, however hard it may be to see it within some. I appeal to Mark Daly to search inside his heart and do the right thing by speaking out openly and truthfully about the Hollie Greig case. Mark, this is not only about the past abuse of Hollie, until those people are brought to justice the rape and torture of innocent little children is continuing. As you lay your head down to sleep at night I would like you to imagine an innocent little child suffering at the hands of a vile abuser with nowhere to run and no-one to listen to their tears. I pray if you have children they will never suffer this fate.
    Please do the right think Mark and speak your truth to the world, even if it means losing your job.

    • I concur with your sentiments. Mark inadvertantly put himself into a dangerous position, and has been, what I term ‘Michael Meechered’. This is much healthier than being ‘Robin Cooked or David Kellyed’.
      When the first layer of the ‘Onion of lies’ is in danger of being removed the ‘Club’ will do anything to protect it. They usually start by threatening to harm the close relations of the person. This is why no person in a position of authority is prepared to speak out. They are either in the ‘Club’ or scared shitless of it.

  9. It is my belief that the BBC would seem to be lovey catchey fealey nice guys and girls (NEWS AT TEN SEAMS TO BEAR THIS OUT) but at the same time they seem to be answering to Masonic/Satanic loyalties, with and in relation to their bosses.(That’s only my belief) I have also complained to the BBC in relation to the reason and subject of this website but with little avail. I believe this is only the tip of a cover up ice burg, waiting to strike..

  10. would LOVE to know who is making threats to scare people off from this case