Major Paedophile Protectors
Tom Minogue's Petition PE306
Read Tom's petition calling for members of the Judiciary to register their
membership of Freemasonry because of their perceived or actual bias.
Read the full petition that calls for the release of the illegal 100-year closure order
imposed by Lord Cullen after
his Dunblane Inquiry whitewash.
Major Paedophile Protectors
Sandra Uttley's Petition to the ECHR
Sandra had to approach the ECHR about the Dunblane Inquiry whitewash after being ignored by
the lawyer-fearing flunkeys in the English and Scottish Parliaments.
Carolyn Leckie's call for a new inquiry
Carolyn Leckie MSP wrote to the Scottish Executive asking for a new Dunblane Inquiry
because, she said, it was deeply flawed and bears the hallmarks of a cover-up.
Colin Boyd Lord Advocate

Billy Burns

 

    1st Letter to the Lord Advocate

 

 

 

William Burns
18 Shore Road
South Queensferry
EH30 9SG
Scotland
Tel: 0131 331 1855

23 March 2003

Colin Boyd QC
Lord Advocate
Lord Advocate’s Chambers
Crown Office
25 Chambers Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1LA

Dear Mr Boyd

100-year Closure Order on Cullen Inquiry Files

It has been brought to my notice that you have allowed the Lord President Lord (William Douglas) Cullen put a 100-year “gagging order” on files relating to his pseudo-Inquiry into the Dunblane Massacre.  There is no statutory basis for the closure of records created by Scottish public bodies.  The Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937 (the 1937 Act) makes provision for the preservation, care and custody of the public records of Scotland.  The terms of the legislation are permissive!  On that account, on what authority was the 100-year ban imposed?

Hansard states that Cullen imposed the closure and it looks like you, as Lord Advocate, are trying to make out that it was a host of bodies responsible, and that Cullen merely approved the closure, allowing him to distance himself from what was a public outrage in which he was centrally involved.

It also stated that, in certain circumstances, this [the closure order] could be waived for those “showing a ‘legitimate’ interest” (my emphasis).  That particular statement could mean anything, or nothing, according to the vagaries of those with a vested interest in, and excel at, bending the rules and executing whitewashes.

The whole charade must be exposed.  There is no statutory basis for the closure of records created by Scottish public bodies.  The files should be where they belong: in the public domain!

My own correspondence with the Cullen Inquiry was put on that 100-year embargo when all I did was take him to task at that time about his blatant cover-up - which involved high level Freemasonry.  Cullen himself is a member of the secretive, exclusive and highly-suspect “Speculative Society”, which is an offshoot of Masonry, and some of the “Brotherhood” at the inquiry were treated with kid gloves, while others were not even required to give evidence.

You should not be allowing Cullen to further cover up his contemptible involvement by agreeing to keep 102 of the 106 files on a 100-year closure order.  Incidentally, there is only one of the four files proposed for release that appears on the National Archives of Scotland’s list.  Does the other three actually exist?

Did you know that on 12th May 1998 Lord Burton asked Lord Sewel in the Lords if he could have Inspector Hughes' report put in the library of the House (presumably out of a legitimate interest) and this was refused by Lord Sewel as "Lord Cullen concluded that these productions should have a 100-year closure placed on them?"

Instead of pussyfooting around to protect Cullen, you ought to be demanding a brand new inquiry, leaving no stones unturned, into the events leading up to the Dunblane Massacre, and also another independent public inquiry into the reasons why Cullen covered up for perverted child abusers and other despicable people who created loopholes for Thomas Hamilton.

In the weeks and months to come, we will be seeing exactly where you stand on this, what you are prepared to do to ferret out those responsible for devising a means of escape for Hamilton, what you are prepared to do to bring to justice all those involved in the child sex-abuse scandal, the subsequent murders, and the ultimate whitewash.

Along with many other members of the public, I will be watching the media with great expectancy, to learn of your programme for justice thereof; and, of course, for the lifting of the 100-year closure order - which is illegal in any event.

In the meantime, I feel it is incumbent on me to ask you the following sincere questions in the interests of openness.  I shall pose it in straightforward language that allows no way for equivocation.  May I add that it is imperative that no one answers the questions on your behalf.  Public perception is all-important, so it would ill-serve everyone if that perception developed simply as a result of your refusal to answer the questions.

1. Did you ever take the oath of Entered Apprentice at 1st degree for the purpose of entering into Masonic association? or
2. Are you obliged by any expectation of loyalty that might have the "potential" to produce an unbalanced judgement by you?

I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest convenience, which I trust will be restricted to the matters contained within this letter.

Yours sincerely
WILLIAM BURNS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2nd Letter to the Lord Advocate

William Burns
18 Shore Road
South Queensferry
EH30 9SG
Tel: 0131 331 1855
1 June 2003

Colin Boyd
Lord Advocate
Lord Advocate’s Chambers
Crown Office
25 Chambers Street
Edinburgh EH1 1LA

Dear Sir

FILE COM21/4/105/1
HELD ON AN EXTRA-STATUTORY 100-YEAR CLOSURE ORDER

You have reported to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament with regard to petitions PE652, PE685 and PE708 to the effect that the Freedom of Information Act 2002 comes into force on 1st January 2005, and all embargoed files would be released that do not contain the names of the Dunblane child sex-abuse victims and their families.  If this is all the PPC can offer in response to the requests I made to the Scottish Parliament, I would be much obliged if you could you clear up one or two anomalies that arise therefrom:

a) Since the Freedom of Information Act does not come into force until 1st January 2005, and given that the 100-year closure order is extra-statutory with no legal authority to justify it, why were the files “gagged” in the first place, and why are they not open to the public as of the utmost urgency and immediacy?  With the greatest respect, referral to previously uttered evasive responses to parliamentary questions does not justify the unjustifiable.

b) Given that my own embargoed file, COM21/4/105/1 has been “yoked” together with unrelated Thomas Hamilton material, filed at COM21/4/105/2, to obviously somehow justify including my correspondence with the Cullen Inquiry in the extra-statutory closure order, could you now separate these two totally unassociated files and remove the former file from the extra-statutory closure order.  Having read the content of COM21/4/105/1, it will soon become manifestly apparent to you that no names of victims of child sex-abuse by the high-profile legal and political figures in the paedophile ring "Friends of QVS" (Queen Victoria School), as they were known)) appear in my correspondence, so there can be no justification for including COM21/4/105/1 in the closure order.

c) On the several occasions I have corresponded with the National Archives of Scotland, I have received comparatively prompt replies, providing me with a more detailed description of each individual item of communication.  (This is how I learned that my file had been “yoked” together with Thomas Hamilton’s unconnected file in order to try to justify burying my correspondence for 100-years.)  Now, if the National Archives of Scotland can pinpoint these files with the greatest of ease and respond accordingly, could you please explain the difficulty the Crown Office has in consulting the selfsame files and responding accordingly?

d) In the light of the National Archives of Scotland informing me that the Crown Office has ordered the Keeper of the Records to re-transmit the embargoed files back to the Crown Office for safe-keeping, can I assume this is to ensure greater efficiency and that I can therefore expect a positive, early response to these queries?

I have written to you periodically on this subject for over 14 months – the first occasion was 23 March 2003 – and seem to be banging my head against a brick wall, yet, as mentioned hereinbefore, I have found the National Archives of Scotland to be more sympathetic and accommodating – in the public interest of course.  I would be much obliged, therefore, if you could be at least as equally efficient and accommodating, given that the embargoed files have obviously been returned to your office for increased efficiency and assistance, again, in the public interest.

I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest convenience.

Yours faithfully
WILLIAM BURNS                                                                           Return to top

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Later Letter to the Lord Advocate

William Burns
18 Shore Road
South Queensferry
EH30 9SG
Tel: 0131 331 1855

21 June 2004

Colin Boyd
Lord Advocate
Lord Advocate’s Chambers
Crown Office
25 Chambers Street
Edinburgh EH1 1LA

Dear Mr Boyd

FILE COM21/4/105/1
HELD ON AN EXTRA-STATUTORY 100-YEAR CLOSURE ORDER

Since I wrote to you on 1st and 4th June 2004 about the above extra-statutory closure order I have received nothing more than an acknowledgement of the first letter.  One of the points I raised was about how efficient the National Archives of Scotland are at responding promptly and effectually to my queries and concerns as opposed to your office’s generally dilatory and all too often casuistic responses.  I thought the idea of the NAS returning the files to the Crown Office was to ensure that satisfactory communication between the public and whoever is currently the Keeper of the Records at the Crown Office would be at least maintained but with enhanced efficiency.  It would be a pity if, in order to attain that standard of efficiency, I had to first complain to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for your:

  • Failure to reply adequately and promptly to letters.
  • General inattention or slowness.
  • Giving misleading or inaccurate advice.
  • Rudeness, bias, discrimination or inconsistency.
  • Failure to have or to follow properly, reasonable administration rules and procedures.

On the offchance that you have misplaced my previous letters, I repeat their content below for your response:

Given that you have reported to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament with regard to petitions PE652, PE685 and PE708 to the effect that the Freedom of Information Act 2002 comes into force on 1st January 2005, and all embargoed files would be released that do not contain the names of the Dunblane child sex-abuse victims and their families, could you please unclog a few perplexities that have arisen.  If all the PPC can offer in response to the requests I made to the Scottish Parliament in my petitions regarding the Cullen Whitewash and the subsequent 100-year “Gagging Order”, I would be much obliged if you could you provide me with some information that the PPC seems determined to bury.

a) Since the Freedom of Information Act does not come into force until 1st January 2005, and given that the 100-year closure order is extra-statutory with no legal authority to justify it, why were the files “gagged” in the first place, and why are they not open to the public as of the utmost urgency and immediacy, keeping in mind the above Act currently has no efficacy?  With the greatest respect, referral to previously uttered evasive responses by you to parliamentary questions does not justify the unjustifiable.

b) Given that my own embargoed file, COM21/4/105/1 has been “yoked” together with unrelated Thomas Hamilton material, filed at COM21/4/105/2, to obviously somehow justify including my correspondence with the Cullen Inquiry in the extra-statutory closure order, could you now separate these two totally unassociated files and remove the former file from the extra-statutory closure order.  Having read the content of COM21/4/105/1, it will soon become manifestly apparent to you that no names of victims of child sex-abuse by the high-profile legal and political figures in the paedophile ring (Friends of QVS (Queen Victoria School), as they were known)) appear in my correspondence, so there can be no justification for including COM21/4/105/1 in the closure order.

c) On the several occasions I have corresponded with the National Archives of Scotland, I have received comparatively prompt replies, providing me with a more detailed description of every individual item of communication.  (This is how I learned that my file had been “yoked” together with Thomas Hamilton’s unconnected file in order to try to justify burying my correspondence for 100-years.)  Now, if the National Archives of Scotland can pinpoint these files with the greatest of ease and respond accordingly, could you please explain the difficulty the Crown Office has in consulting the selfsame files and responding accordingly?

d) In the light of the National Archives of Scotland informing me that the Crown Office has ordered the Keeper of the Records to re-transmit the embargoed files back to the Crown Office for safe-keeping, can I assume this is to ensure greater efficiency and that I can therefore expect a positive, early response to these queries?

I have written to you periodically on this subject for more than 14 months – the first occasion was 23 March 2003 – and seem to be banging my head against a brick wall, yet, as mentioned hereinbefore, I have found the National Archives of Scotland to be more sympathetic and accommodating – in the public interest of course.  I would be much obliged, therefore, if you could be at least as equally efficient and accommodating, given that the embargoed files have obviously been returned to your office for increased efficiency and assistance, again, in the public interest.

I look forward to receiving your reply at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely
WILLIAM BURNS

[Ed ~ An added matter of interest, Colin Boyd would be ousted from the Lord Advocateship on 4 October 2006, just six days after he was due to appear in court following a writ being served on him at the Crown Office on behalf of pensioner James Duff.  The writ contained a whole range of accusations regarding collusion and conspiracy between Colin Boyd, the Crown Office in general, and police officers and lawyers in Dumfries.]
After a convenient furlough from the legal, political and public eye, in which he had hitherto disgracefully made an ass of the Scottish people, Boyd, it was announced on 1 June 2012, would be eased back into the fold and appointed a Senator of the College of Justice; a Judge of the Supreme Courts.  Such was his long awaited reward for his homage over a number of years to his nibs - the great panjandrum.

Copyright © 2016 Billy Burns. All rights reserved.

Lord Advocate Colin Boyd

The stained glass window in St Blane's Church, Dunblane, which commemorates the victims of the 1996 Massacre
Google chrome is the adopted web browser for this site
Click here to view the full list in the Dunblane Whitewash catalogue
We know that the above victims were killed by Thomas Hamilton, but we do not know for sure who killed Thomas Hamilton!
Emma Crozier
Kevin Hassell
Victoria Clydesdale
Ross Irvine
David Kerr
John Petrie
Hanna Scott
Joanna Ross
Sophie North
Emily Morton
Maegan Turner
Brett McKinnon
Abigail McLennan
Charlotte Dunn
Mhairi MacBeath
Melissa Currie
Gwen Hodson/Mayor - schoolteacher
List of the victims of the Dunblane Massacre
Dunblane Massacre
Dunblane Cover-up