Statement by the HDJ campaign 19th June 2012

Statement by the HDJ campaign.

With regard to the recent videos produced by Sarah McLeod and ‘John Taylor/Stephen Milne’ on behalf of alleged abusers, and the associated articles that have appeared in The Herald, this site will be making no direct comments, other than to say that we had previously been advised that the ‘hatchet job’ perpetrated in The Herald by Mr Leask was underway as early as last Wednesday.

This site will not be taking the bait to engage in an internet exchange, a de-facto trial by internet, nor will there be any indication of the cumulative evidence that we do or do not hold, nor do we feel we need to.

Letters and Emails sent to us by our regular contributors will still continue to be published based upon their merit and legality.

As we have stated on previous occasions the evidence that we do hold will be presented at the right time and in the right place.

We are currently taking legal advice in reference to the videos, the makers of the videos and The Herald publications, upon which advice we may decide to act in a time and manner of our choosing.


9 thoughts on “Statement by the HDJ campaign 19th June 2012

  1. Dignified, succint response and most of all why should you engage with those unauthorised people who have ‘turned’ from being ‘supporters’ because they wish an internet debate to enhance their cyber status of nonentity fantasists playing at being informed. There is a place, there shall be a time and the site they ‘admin’ is most definitely not the place.

  2. Well i think it is absolutley a put up job ,2 vidios ,paper report in 3 days ,hope whoever did it ,oh we know are proud of themselves,down syndrom do not lie medical fact ,who is lying court decides Judgement for hollie xxx

  3. But we know they never turned at all, getting into a trusted position, ready to strike like snakes. There must be a reason why people like this do what they do.
    To be sure, they are still slinking around in the undergrowth.

  4. If Hollie’s campaign hold proof of certain facts, such as Anne’s forced hospitalisation (in fact I thought the authorities said there was no record of her being in a mental institution) etc, then surely there’s a case for Anne suing the Herald for quite a number of apparent lies printed by Leask in last week’s Sunday Herald. Surely that would provide an opportunity to bring it to the public domain and into the open courts.

  5. BTW, meant to say that the Sunday Herald’s article was totally biased and clearly weighted in favour of Hollie’s perpetrators. It went beyond reporting facts as I thought was the job of an ‘investigative journalist’ whose job is to do just that, print the facts and not put his own agenda in there which was very obvious from his mud-slinging re. conspiracy theorists etc which he seemed to find necessary to re-iterate to the reader.Why on Earth would an ‘investigative journalist’ do this unless of course he’s part of the cover-up.
    Has he never considered that if Sylvia Major and her cronies were so distraught then why have they not tried to clear their names through the courts? I mean, losing a business and having people whisper around you in a place as small as Aberdeen!! The first place any innocent, decent, law-abiding citizen would go immediately would be to court to clear their name and prove their innocence. Why did this not happen Mr Leask? Were they scared of something? I’m sure it wasn’t because they couldn’t get legal aid!
    Mr Leask, you did both yourself, the Herald and this country a dis-service, in trying to cover-up you only added weight to the Hollie campaign. Even my husband, who previously found it very difficult to believe such a menace could be infiltrating our society at such high levels could see through your reporting of the case. The TRUTH will always prevail, the time is coming closer for all involved in this sordid case to be exposed.

  6. From the Editors code (which governs the self-regulation of the Press)
    “The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
    ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published”

    It would be difficult to find anything more inaccurate, misleading or distorted than the article the Sunday Herald published last weekend.

    So, will the Editor(s) at the Herald do the decent thing and publish an apology?

    I hope so, but I won’t hold my breath….

  7. I tried to register with the Scottish Herald so that I could comment on their certain articles (Regarding Robert Green/ Hollie Greig ) that are reported in their newspaper but they won’t le me register. I do find this strange as I tried to register before I had even made a comment. Just goes to show that you do need to be of the correct discipline and status to comment in the comment sections, upon certain topics in relation in this newspaper’s articles but never mind they probably hate me because I am English. Give it a try yourselves.

  8. Andrew, I had the same problem and didn’t labour over it. Lot’s of filters around to prevent free speech. The msm only publish comments that adhere to their brief.