Monday, 25 February 2013

Hollie Greig Hoax Group at Inspired by Icke


The Hollie Greig Hoax Group have spoken at the Inspired by David Icke discussion group, formerly known as the London David Icke Discussion Group, see: http://www.meetup.com/Inspired-By-David-Icke-London-Discussion-Group/ (I myself have spoken there too, see: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/ben-emlyn-jones-live-at-ldidg.html) This event was the brainchild of my friend and fellow researcher Heidi King and I'm glad her idea was endorsed; I was there, and I think this event will go down in the history of the group as one of their classics.

See here for important background: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/hollie-greig-real-or-fake.html. Belinda McKenzie and the other members of Hollie Demands Justice were invited to attend, but declined. She agreed to meet up with some friends of mine before the event at another location, but she failed to turn up. This did not surprise me, as I have made similar requests to HDJ in attempt to clear up this issue with an open debate and I was snidely and sarcastically pushed aside, as you'll see in the background link. Instead I arranged to host a round table interview with the Hollie Greig Hoax group on HPANWO Radio and this went ahead in January: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/programme-28-podcast-hollie-greig-hoax.html. Since then the HDJ people have still refused to agree to a proper debate and have only replied in unilateral publications which include a lot of rhetoric and the same kind of personal nastiness I myself experienced; only it often got far worse: "paedophile protector" and "MI5 agent" are some of the epithets hurled at their opponents. Also a few days before, a number of emails were sent to people, including myself, laced with ludicrous legal threats, moral blackmail and third party insinuations aimed at dissuading anybody thinking of attending the event. Luckily it didn't seem to work; the function room above The George pub on The Strand in London was packed out. But while we were waiting for the event to begin, a woman sneaked in furtively and handed out fliers to the audience before hurriedly leaving. These fliers were a list of questions for the speakers; most of them concern Sylvia Major's private life, alleged marital strife and her relationship to various children's charities; how are these relevant to the subject at hand? If they are relevant then why doesn't HDJ come to the event and explain why? One of the questions asked why the Hoax Group accepted an invitation to speak at a meeting in which people believed in "the New World Order", "shape-shifting lizards" and that "9/11 was an inside job". I'm surprised to hear this coming from HDJ when they themselves profess to be a part of the Truth Movement and endorsed a lot of these ideas themselves. I remember that Belinda McKenzie herself regularly attended the Inspired by David Icke group a couple of years ago when it was just an informal gathering in the public bar downstairs. It's a shame because I used to admire Belinda deeply; I considered her a heroine of the Truth Movement and a saviour of all the millions of children living lives of Hell on Earth in this world, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/british-humanist-association-conspiracy.html

I can't say too much about the proceedings of the event because the organizer, Cathy, asked us not to record or film, and to keep any notes we made confidential. But basically it consisted of a question-and-answer session from the audience. Of the four members of the group I interviewed on HPANWO Radio, three of them were there in person, Rachel, Sarah and Sylvia; Rachel and Sarah did almost all the talking. It immediately became apparent that many people there were still sympathetic to HDJ and very suspicious of the Hoax Group's case. There were some well-versed points put forward for the speakers which Rachel and Sarah answered cogently and in detail. It wasn't long before the Q and A became a debate between audience members too, and this escalated into a fairly heated argument. Occasionally the tone became vitriolic. One female audience-member, enraged to the point of tears, derided Rachel and Sarah for "betraying their fellow women" by daring to question a rape allegation. I've spoken before about the political incorrectness of this subject, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/julian-assange-at-ecuador-embassy.html. In this case however one of the speakers answered by explaining how she herself had been sexually abused and knew exactly how Hollie would have felt had she really been a true victim in this way. At one point the debate descended into the realms of absurdity. A questioner mispronounced Brian Gerrish's surname "Garish" and somebody very indignantly challenged them and demanded that they pronounce it properly. Why? What difference does it make to her point? I found it strange that such a fuss would be made over the length of a single vowel. For me, this discussion was the final nail in the coffin for the Hollie Demands Justice campaign's argument: the use of ad hominem accusations, personal criticism and appeal to the emotions, together with substituting angry comments about irrelevant trivia in place of logical persuasion, is a sure sign that their theory has no foundation to stand on. And I repeat: HDJ will not sit down and address the Hoax Group's questions openly and rationally in a public debate.

The speakers said right at the start: "The Hollie Greig case is dead", and they're right. Rachel and Sarah are not Skeptics either; they explained that they are Truthers themselves who agree that 9/11 was an inside job and understand that the institutional mass-abuse of children does indeed go on. What the Hollie Greig case has done is give us a big wake-up call to our own failings and weaknesses. We've wasted an incalculable amount of time and energy chasing a mirage. It's painful to imagine what we might have achieved if we hadn't been so distracted by this delusion and focused on the genuine victims of abuse. Could we have had the satisfaction of seeing Jimmy Savile apprehended and disgraced during his lifetime, instead of being rescued by the grave as he was? And what harm have we done to the reputations of innocent people!? I've publicly apologized to Sylvia and Wyn, as have the Hoax Group of course, and those ladies have been very gracious and forgiving. I also apologize to Sheriff Buchanan and everybody else we've smeared. But there is material permanently preserved in the caches of the Internet containing these attacks against their characters. And what about the central figure in this escapade of folly: Hollie Greig herself? She's a vulnerable young woman with learning difficulties; how has this affected her? We must not make this mistake again!

I'm very glad to see that the Hollie Greig case does seem to be slipping away now. Most people in the Truth community just don't talk about it any more, and a growing number of people are now out of the closet in agreeing that is was a hoax. As far as HDJ goes, there are today just a small band of loyalists left, centred around Belinda. At a recent protest Belinda carried out at the BBC, to mark Hollie's thirtieth birthday, she had eight people with her; two years ago she'd have rustled up hundreds. The question is now: how long will it be before it makes its final exit? And what can we do to protect Sylvia and Wyn while the remnants of the HDJ campaign continue to publish their propaganda? I think the answer is what we're doing right now; holding events like the one yesterday. I admired Sarah and Rachel very much for their brave and dignified stance at this very belligerent and confrontational meeting; Sylvia too, a relative of Hollie and one of the accused, for travelling all the way from Scotland to address the group and clear her name. Thanks also to Cathy and everybody else who organized the event. As I write these words I'm also preparing to interview Kevin Annett for HPANWO Radio; and that's another thing we can do: get on with our work in freeing children by exposing the real truth!

19 comments:

  1. For me, the whole Hollie Greig case has become a mystery. The rabbit hole is deeper than most of us suspect. There are just too many odd characters involved right from the beginning in this saga. The weirdo from Shropshire, Lance What's his name. How did that nasty little man get involved and why? He has previous having been part of a plot to undermine the leadership of UKIP..........I can see that the evidence for any abuse of Hollie is weak so why does an intelligent couple like Robert Green and Belinda McKenzie persist in their allegations? So much time, travel, money involved. Why? The same question could be asked of those who run the Hollie Hoax side. Surely if the evidence is so flimsy why has the core of both sides put in so much work into this case when there are far more important and awful things happening in this country as well as the various ongoing paedophile investigations that are being hushed up and need exposing to the light. Elm House, Savile, the MPs and various celeb pedo rings, the Jersey scandal, the Welsh boys homes, the April Smith case, Dunblane, Soham, Leon Brittan, Hodge and Islington, Esther Rantzen, Edwina Currie, the McCanns.........Have we all been deliberatedly sidetracked down a side road by a very, very clever psyop?.......There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the establishment "elite" in the UK use young children for their own evil, sinister purposes and this is going on all around the world. They have been getting away with it for millennia..............The plebs are beginning to become aware of it so those at the top are feverishly covering up all traces of their obnoxious activities on many different fronts..........Follow your intuition, go with your gut feelings. This is not all over yet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you Ben for and excellent summary. This is truly a extremely sad story of a family torn apart - not by child abuse, but by mental illness which turned into vengeance. It escalated to a point where there was no going back, and in the end became "Hollie Demands Justice."

    Regards

    Jon (Pyrite)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ben, i am sorry but you have completely misrepresented and twisted what happened in that meeting. There were no heated arguments and there was very little belligerence, apart from two individuals,(one of whom seemed to be very mentally unstable), on the HDJ side and two audience members from the Hoax side, both of whom were indeed aggressive and belligerent, interrupting people and telling people to shut up,with much jabbing of aggressive fingers and such like.

    True, tough questions were asked about inconsistencies in the stance of the Hoax group, who had at one time announced that they had left the Hollie campaign because they did not believe in the, world wide culture of pedophile rings, saying such things were rubbish, fantastical a total conspiracy theory. They were then forced to change their tune when the Saville and Government pedophile rings allegations emerged into the mainstream, and then started backtracking and saying they had always believed in them.

    When challenged both Sarah and Rachel seemed very phased by this. looked uncomfortable and struggling to find words to explain this anomaly. They were also asked to explain why they were representing themselves as truthers, as their group has spent much time scoring conspiracy theorists and truthers, calling them nutters and mocking Belinda for her work with 911 truth groups. Although they were asked to clarify these points several times, they never addressed the questions and tried to deflect them by going off on tangents, making excuses and generally refusing to answer the questions. This evasion of answering the question was a major source of discussion amongst many of the audience members after the meeting.

    They were also challenged about the very nasty personal attacks that their group has made on individuals, who at the time, thought what they were doing was supporting a survivor of a terrible sexual ordeal. They said they had no control over what other members of the hoax group had said, till it was pointed out that one of the very nasty attacks had been made by Rachel herself and backed up by a very amused Sarah. To give Sarah her due, she did apologise for this. She also said that, in future, she would make sure that such despicable, childish personal attacks would not happen again. I also acknowledge that the hoax group have had to put up very nasty personal attacks themselves and that this is bound to make people defensive.

    I don't know how you have failed to mention these facts in your incredibly biased, one sided, and i would go so far to say untruthful review of the meeting.

    Now i agree that the whole Hollie thing is 99% a hoax, but the hoax group also had much to answer for. I also agree that the hand out about Sylvia's private life was nasty and irrelevant. I do not remember any references as to why the hoax group were attending a truther group, (unless this info was on another sheet of paper that i did not see), so this seems to be another untruth you are telling.

    Like the majority of people attending i came there sitting on the fence, and came down, in the end, on the probability that it was all a hoax. Contrary to your statement that there were many HDJ members attending, most of the people there were the usual inspired by DI group members. Of course many of us used to support the campaign, as you did yourself, but the large majority has been questioning the truth of the Hollie campaign for sometime and had really come to listen to what was being presented with an open mind. However, we were not going to accept their version without first clearing up some nagging doubts about the conduct of the Hoax group in the past and questioning their claims to be truthers, when their group has constantly mocked and reviled truthers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. anonymous continued as ran out of allowed word space


    I spoke with Sylvia and she seemed a very nice, normal woman, who must have been very strong in the face of such terrible accusations made about her, i felt great sympathy for her.
    There was also a very eloquent speech from a lady who has done much to support and raise awareness of the plight of the abused and survivors of abuse, only to have her campaign hijacked and taken over by Belinda and her associates and run to further their own dubious agendas. it was this lady's testimony that tipped the balance for many people, rather than that of Sarah and Rachel, (although, as i had said before, i was impressed by their apologies for past behavior the assurance that they would take care to curb any further abusive behavior by members of the hoax group)

    As was mentioned at the meeting, many more people would have been willing to listen to the hoax group far earlier, if had not been for the way the group conducted itself in the past, (such as bullying, intimidating and humiliating a very ill, well meaning 70 year old lady, reducing her to tears)

    I think you are a good person Ben, but i cannot fathom why you have twisted the truth to such an extent here, i suspect you are overcompensating for your former support for the HDJ group. Many of us trusted Belinda and are furious at being lied to and manipulated, but that does not mean that there are not also serious questions to be raised about the background, agendas and validity of certain members of the hoax group.

    The people i feel sorry for are Hollie, Sylvia and Wyn, but also many of the well meaning campaigners who devoted their time, money and sacrificed their health and well being, in the belief that they were doing something wonderful to gain justice for a young woman, who is unable to fully represent herself.



    ReplyDelete
  5. Cheers, Jon. Sorry you couldn't get there on the day. Yes, it's Hollie I feel most sorry for. She's the one really affected most by this, I realize now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Anon. I don't think I have misrespresented or twisted a single thing that happened at that meeting. As for "biased" and "one sided" and "untruthful"!? Absolutely not! I fail to understand how you can claim that me describing the meeting yesterday as heated argument constitutes any form of untruth, misrepresentation or twisting. You may call it something slightly different; fair enough, but it's really wrong of you to say that I "Completely misrepresented and twisted what happened". That is totally unfair. The aggression came from BOTH sides in that meeting, not just the hoax side. If you were there you ought to know that one of the audience members was granted a very long segment of the meeting's time to air the very same complaint that you are now. I know how upsetting it is to be abused on the Internet and I have myself, VERY BADLY! Much worse than anybody I've heard of in these FB comments boxes being. The reason I have "failed to mention these facts"... as you quite wrongly call it... is because I didn't fully understand what was being said in the crossfire between the people in the room. I also wasn't sure whether Cathy wanted this much detail revealed. She did seem worried about that.

    If you're so truthful yourself when you're accusing me of not being, perhaps you could indicate the point where I protested against the woman making this complaint being allowed to continue speaking... You can't! Because I didn't! I don't think there was anything wrong with questioning Rachel and Sarah over the online conduct of the FB group at all. I wish you'd ASKED me this first before hurling accusations and criticisms at me.

    I know that the original HDJ campaigners were well-meaning. I was one of them. But there's no valour in refusing to discuss and turning away from debate the way the leaders of HDJ have done (I know HDJ members were there. I was referring to the members who were spoecifically asked to attend to defend the thing's they'd publicly said.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I will be revealing more about the institutional mass abuse of children by the paedophile elite in my blog Swimming Pool Attendants Stopping Tavistock Institute Corruption.

    Keith



    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, Keith! I didn't quite understand you! Must have been cos it was late and I was tired. Very amusing I'm sure. Big belly laughs all round, everyone! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Ben, i am sorry but you have completely misrepresented and twisted what happened in that meeting."

    I wonder if this poster could contact me please? pirite0@gmail.com

    I'm very interested in understanding more.

    Regards

    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  10. Haha! Apologies - pyrite0@gmail.com

    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  11. Our response to the above comment was a little too long for the comments here - http://www.theholliegreigcoverup.net/a-personal-response.html

    Jon.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good response, Jon :-) You remembered the proceedings of events better than I did.

    Thanks

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  13. amazeballs anne greg conjured up all these expert reports dished em out on the off chance that 8 years later she could set up a pay pal at just the wrong time to con people out their cash.
    The father the brother and other including the Holburn Street good time girl need to be properly questioned

    Something which would have been far cheaper than this farce has cost to date .


    As for the shills they had all the info for two years then like watkins did a classic flip

    ReplyDelete
  14. amazeballs anne greg conjured up all these expert reports dished em out on the off chance that 8 years later she could set up a pay pal at just the wrong time to con people out their cash.
    The father the brother and other including the Holburn Street good time girl need to be properly questioned

    Something which would have been far cheaper than this farce has cost to date .


    As for the shills they had all the info for two years then like watkins did a classic flip

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anne greig has been changing details of the story if you watch videos from 2009 to 2012 little but important details change. And there always trying to link everything to there story
    ▶anne greig foned police because suspected her ex was involved in disappearance of madline maccan
    ▶video on youtube recently appeared trying link hollie greig to jimmy Saville
    It's crazy talk

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've seen the one about Madeleine McCann, but they've tried it with Jimmy Savile too? That is madness!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous said...
    Thank you Ben for and excellent summary. This is truly a extremely sad story of a family torn apart - not by child abuse, but by mental illness which turned into vengeance. It escalated to a point where there was no going back, and in the end became "Hollie Demands Justice."

    Regards

    Jon (Pyrite)Stevenson Road Senses

    25 February 2013 09:11

    Whits happened tae his blog :), a yewtree visit eh

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anne greig has been changing details of the story if you watch videos from 2009 to 2012 little but important details change. And there always trying to link everything to there story
    ▶anne greig foned police because suspected her ex was involved in disappearance of madline maccan
    ▶video on youtube recently appeared trying link hollie greig to jimmy Saville
    It's crazy talk



    WHAT DETAILS HAVE CHANGED , SPECIFICALLY? None the evidence is the evidence

    ReplyDelete