Saturday, 17 March 2012

The Continued Abuse Of Hollie Greig

Hollie Demands Justice Hollie's official web site.


This is a detailed report by Christina England, outlining the corruption involved within the care system, and in particular the corruption involved in the Hollie Greig case. Hollie was brutally and sadistically abused by a gang of paedophiles in Aberdeen Scotland between the age of 6 and 20. Hollie is now 32 and the system has conspired to abuse her further and silence her once and for all. Over this last two years they have sunk to the most despicable level of corruption to try and take Hollie away from her Mother and put her in care, this excellent report by Christina England documents the levels of depravity they have descended too. 


Hollie Greig, Robert Green and Anne Greig at a recent court appearance.




Vast sums of money to write reports on clients
by Christina England



Reports are being written all over the UK and probably worldwide on patients and clients that the authors of the reports have never met. Professionals are diagnosing mental disorders, ADHD, disability and are even making false accusations of child abuse in written documents being presented to courts, hearings, benefit agencies and even child protection conferences, without ever even meeting the patient or client. These fraudulent documents have the power to ruin careers, determine whether patients are entitled to disability benefits and remove children from their families.

One mother told me that she was falsely accused of Munchausen by Proxy by a child psychiatrist who had never met her or her children. Another mother told me that her son had been prescribed the ADHD drug Ritalin by someone she had never met. So how bad is this problem? Well, if my research is correct, this is one of the largest acts of fraud and deception operating in our systems today.

Recently I published an article proving that leading psychologist and expert in Autism Lisa Blakemore-Brown had her career deliberately sabotaged by the British Psychological Society, when they chose to take the word of a psychiatrist who had never met Ms Blakemore-Brown.

Dr Friedman had written a detailed report labeling Blakemore-Brown 'paranoid' based on the opinion of others and paperwork which Ms Blakemore-Brown had been tricked to send in as part of her evidence.

In any other scenario the word of others would be classed as merely 'hearsay' however when the word of others is used by a psychologist/psychiatrist to formulate an 'opinion' in cases involving the General Medical Council, British Psychological Society and the Health Professionals Council, their word is taken at face value. In the case of Ms Blakemore-Brown the evidence on which Dr Friedman had based his views was dodgy to say the least.

Five years on and this practice still exists, innocent lives are being ruined after medical professionals continue to write reports based on the material they read and the word of others. These professionals demand high sums of money to write reports on clients that they have never met which are subsequently presented in courts and case conferences around the UK and I suspect around the world to determine the fate of others.

The HPC or the 'Health Professions Council' is a professional organization found to be using these dirty tricks, when they are asked to examine cases where psychologists registered by them have presented reports to courts and child protection conferences without ever seeing their client/patient.

This happened when one of the largest cases to ever go before the judiciary system was examined by the HPC. The case involved a young woman with Downs syndrome Miss Hollie Grieg. Miss Grieg had told her mother Anne that she had been sexually abused from the age of six by her father and her brother. This abuse was alleged to have taken place in Scotland where the family had been living at the time. Shocked and appalled Hollie's mother Anne Greig reported the matter to the police.
Hollie soon began to disclose information on others that she said had also sexually abused her. Hollie Greig's allegations included the name of a serving police officer with the Grampian force and an Aberdeen sheriff. 

Interestingly, Hollie Greig's complaints of abuse were NEVER taken seriously and NEVER investigated. In a report written by the police they admitted that at no time were the accused interviewed. This meant their homes were not searched, their computers were not analyzed and DNA was not taken. Shockingly, this was admitted in the Police Complaints Report and also the CICA (Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority). This report can be seen on a video shown on this website at the bottom of the page. Hollie Demands Justice The only exception to this was Hollie's father and brother who were interviewed. According to Robert Green an investigator investigating the case it took as long as two years of complaints from Hollie and her mother Anne, before the police finally decided to interview Hollie's brother and her father.

So why were Hollie Greig's reports of abuse ignored? Surely it is usual for complaints of this nature to be taken very seriously, especially where the welfare of vulnerable children may be at risk?

Amazingly, psychologist Ms Carolyn McQueen employed to write a report on Hollie for Shropshire County Council stated that Hollie's claims of sexual abuse were unsubstantiated. This was very strange because if no interviews were carried out, then how could Ms McQueen be absolutely sure that Hollie Greig's claims were unsubstantiated?

According to a website set up in order to support Hollie Greig, a medical examination revealed that it was clear that she had been sexually abused. The site states:

"Medical and other evidence supported Miss G's account and Grampian Police accepted the truth of Miss G's statement. Nonetheless, no action was taken by Grampian Police against the perpetrators and despite AG's persistence, the Procurator Fiscal, now Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini prevented any police action taking place." 

McQueen wrote the following in her report:

"Last year HG named further individuals involved in the abuse in Scotland. Again no evidence was found on investigation."

It was later discovered that Ms McQueen had been asked by Tanya Mills, team locality manager for people with learning disabilities in Shropshire social services (where Hollie and her mother now lived) to review the case and make an assessment of the psychological impact of the current situation on Hollie Greig. This was because she was a vulnerable adult.

Mr Green stated on his website that McQueen was not the only professional to be asked to write a report on Anne and Hollie Greig, Helen Ogilvy, an independent social worker originally employed to help Anne get direct payments as a full-time carer for Hollie was also asked to write a report.

Now to most of us, common sense would tell us that the only way that any professional could assess the mental health and capabilities of a patient, especially a vulnerable adult, would be to get to know them and assess them through many hours of study and observations. Hollie Grieg was after all a young disabled adult who had been abused continually throughout much of her young life by members of what was now appearing to be an organized pedophile ring. However, according to Robert Green neither woman had interviewed Hollie. Ms McQueen certainly made it abundantly clear that she had not assessed them either because she wrote:

"There are obvious constraints on undertaking a psychological assessment on an individual without being able to assess them directly. For example all data is historical and hence an opinion on their immediate presentation is not possible. However, drawing together information from case files and professionals who have knowledge of HG can be given of the possible effects on HG of her present situation, which can be investigated further if deemed necessary."

The above paragraph from Ms McQueen's report makes it quite clear that Ms McQueen had not examined or assessed Hollie or Anne at any time and yet she was able to make huge assumptions on the mental health of both these women.

As no action was clearly being taken by the authorities or the police to protect Hollie Greig, a vulnerable and disabled adult, from these people, Robert Green, decided that if those in authority would not do anything to protect Hollie then he would help Hollie to get the justice that she deserved by publicizing her case. She traveled with Mr Green to a conference of around 400 people in Bristol to listen to Robert about her abuse and also the 'so called' enquiries that had followed. All details of this meeting and all information surrounding this case has been widely publicized on an internet site set up to support and get justice for this family. 

Much of McQueen's report clearly focuses on the fact that Anne and Hollie Greig had given evidence regarding the abuse of Hollie in public. At no time did she mention the fact that this action only took place after it became clear that no legal action was going to take place to put the perpetrators behind bars. Mr Green told me that the only reason that he decided to take this drastic step was to bring Hollie's abusers to justice and to stop these dreadful practices continuing against others, including adults with learning difficulties.

Green said:

"Anne and Hollie knew that they did not stand a chance and therefore in order to get justice and expose the criminals as well as those who were protecting them they decided to speak about their actions publicly. He said that Hollie was very angry and wanted people to know her story."

With Robert's help this was achieved. However as a result the authorities came after Hollie and Anne to silence them even though they were the victims."

Without ever meeting the family, McQueen was able to refer to Anne as 'vulnerable' and suffering from mental health problems, even labeling her as 'paranoid' in support of an application by Shropshire Council for the Court to consider Hollie Greig's residence. McQueen indicated that Hollie had become reliant on her mother and that she needed to become an independent person. In other words McQueen appeared to be labeling a woman that she had never met 'mentally ill' in order to aid the removal of Hollie from her care.

McQueen wrote:

"Ideally the way forward is to work with AG and H.G to help resolve the trauma they have experienced and decrease the separation anxiety and allow them both to build more to begin to build more independent lives in the community."

The content of McQueen's report was so strong in fact that it was used as part of the evidence provided to aid bringing a court case against Anne Grieg, Robert Green and others in a bid to prevent Hollie from attending campaign meetings etc, whereby her medical records (sexual abuse) were to be spoken about in public. This was despite Hollie Greig (an adult in the eyes of the law) making her feelings very clear that she wanted to attend these meetings and speak out against her abusers.

Green told me that he was certain that the report was written in a bid to separate Anne from her daughter and to silence them both. He said that Anne believed that this was to protect the abusers.

In fact Mr Green felt so strongly about McQueen writing such a damning report about Anne and Hollie, without ever meeting either of them, that he wrote to the HPC reporting her as being unfit to practice. However, like thousands of other cases being reported to governing bodies against professionals using this method as evidence in court cases, hearings and child protection, her complaint fell on deaf ears. The HPC wrote this in a letter Robert Green as the final result:

Decision

The decision of the Committee is that there is no case to answer. Accordingly, no further action will be taken by the HPC in respect of the allegation(s).

This was exactly the same decision made in the case of Lisa Blakemore-Brown when she complained about the psychiatrist in her case.

The same outcome has also been reported involving doctors employed by ATOS, an organization that employ medical assessors to make decisions on disability allowances and payouts to victims of adverse reactions to vaccines.

Jonathan R Shaw (Minister of State (Disabled People), Regional Affairs; Chatham and Aylesford, Labour) says:

"The approved health care professionals' (HCPs) role is to carry out an assessment of the functional effects of the customer's disabling condition, and to utilize the information gathered to provide the decision maker with an impartial and independent assessment.

Atos doctors must be fully registered with the General Medical Council without current or previous restrictions, conditions or warnings and hold a license to practice from the date the GMC issues licenses. In addition they must have at least three years post full registration (GMC or EFA European Economic Area equivalent) experience as a minimum. Alternatively for non EU graduates three years post full registration experience in the doctors native country is required. In individual cases, solely at the discretion of the CMA, the requirements that no conditions or warnings be attached to registration and that the doctor must have a minimum of three years post registration experience, may be waived." (4)

Despite the above however, in the first 6 months of this year 39 cases were brought to the attention of ATOS and 26 GMC registered docs were reported to the GMC in connection with their employment. None of these cases progressed to a Fitness to Practice Hearing.

The above information was gained after submitting a letter to the Freedom of Information request. The FOI request states:

"Please note that these 39 enquiries include some in which the word 'ATOS' is mentioned but where the actions of ATOS or that of doctors employed by ATOS is incidental to the primary complaint. By interrogating our case management further in respect of these complaints, I have therefore determined that of the 39 enquiries identified above 26 specifically relate to complaints made against GMC registered doctors as a direct result of their employment with ATOS. None of these enquiries have proceeded to Fitness to Practice Panel hearing."

I have been told by one mother that she knows of many parents complaining about doctors employed by ATOS who have written reports on their children without ever meeting them.

This is borne out by a posting on a Mental Health Forum. 

Contributor said:

Quote contributors own spelling

"hi I am struggling under pressure hugely at the moment. i have been suffering from severe depression and anxiety for over 6 years and am under the cmht with a care coordinator and support worker. i also suffer from alcoholism and am currently 3 months clean. i went to the esa assessment and failed. i scored 0 points despite suffering from severe anxiety stuttering and being alcohol dependent. i am not able to leave the house unless i go out with someone i attend support groups through two different mental health depts, one a day hospital and one a support centre. i drive there but i know there is going to be a support worker at the other end when i arrive. Despite all this they scored me 0. i then appealed, i sent in letters of support from my psychiatrist my key worker from the day hospital and a letter from my care coordinator. Despite all this a person who had never met me decided they agreed with the first decision and said i was fit for work."

For those who are unsure of what an ESA assessment is, mentioned in the above comment, the ESA or Employment Support Allowance is a new benefit replacing the former Incapacity Benefit.

On another blog a poster wrote:

"There's thousands upon thousands of adverse opinions regarding ATOS on dozens of blogs and forums, Thousands of vitriolic comments denouncing ATOS as corrupt, accusing them of fabricating medical reports on behalf of the DWP.

Another poster says:

"A desensitized version of my disturbing and damning research report appears on my website and you'll see how bad it gets once you've accessed 9 months of research following a home visit by an AH doctor who produced a bogus report, claiming to have examined me when no examination had taken place. I think the penny has finally dropped with Atos that this is against the law and a breach of medical ethics, and the young man concerned is being investigated now by the GMC. All medicals by Atos have NO public accountability according to both the GMC & Healthcare"

Finally, I am going to mention one more organization using professionals paid to write very detailed reports on clients that they never meet. This organization is called the VDPU or Vaccine Damage Payments Unit. The VDPU was set up to assess individuals claiming that they have been adversely affected by a vaccine recommended by the UK government.

The VDPU use assessors to assess the claims of any individual who believes that they have been vaccine damaged. Wendy Stephen is the mother of Katie Stephen. Katie became seriously ill and was left profoundly deaf in one ear after being given the Pluserix vaccine, an MMR vaccine now banned in the UK. Mrs. Stephen said:

"Katie has applied and been refused by the VDPU for compensation in total 4 times. She has been advised that her claim has been assessed/re-examined a total of 5 times by /healthcare practitioners/medical advisers. We have had no communication at all with these individuals, have never been provided with a copy of the actual reports compiled by the medical advisers for the VDPU and at no time has Katie been interviewed or examined in person. We have no details at all re the individuals who have carried out the assessments. We don't know if it's been the same individual throughout or if a different individual has been involved at each referral. We are aware of the one time when the VDPU specifically advised us that they were intending to have her claim reassessed with by a "different" healthcare provider, other than that we have no information whatsoever."

Today we learned yet another appeal failed to get the financial entitlement that this young woman is owed. Once again the decision was decided on a fraudulent report submitted by a VDPU assessor that has never met, examined or interviewed this young lady.

It is about time that professionals who write bogus reports on people that they have never met were held accountable. According to evidence I have found many of these professionals are paid as much as £2000 plus for their reports. This is taking money by deception and is therefore fraudulent. These reports are being presented to courts as genuine and affect the lives of real people. The victims of these fraudulent reports often lose their careers, children and money owed to them as a consequence. The actions of these professionals is despicable and the sooner this practice is stamped out the better. These reports have the power to diagnose mental illness and degree of disability. They have the power to decide those entitled to benefits and whether children should be taken away from their families and put in care or placed for adoption. It is vital that this practice is ended and it be made illegal for professionals to write a report on someone they have not met or assessed. 
False statements can lead to false imprisonment and those who entitled to benefits to go hungry.



By Christina England
Hollie Demands Justice Hollie's official web site

No comments:

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Follow by Email

Blog Archive