If you want to do a job on behalf of
the public, in the best interests of the public, wages paid by the public,
you must ensure you are up for it Otherwise, "get back to
where you once belonged", to coin a phrase from the Beatles (April
The figures around the outside are even more culpable
than the above members of the Public Petitions Committee (PPC).
Caroline Leckie MSP excluded since she later motioned the Scottish Executive
in her own right for a fresh probe into the Dunblane massacre. LINK
However, the other members of the PPC should hang their heads in shame
for lying to the Scottish people, because, by so doing, they inadvertently
or otherwise protected, inter alios, paedophiles' past vile activities
while simultaneously giving them the green light to continue unabatedly
for many years to come. The bottom three members immediately above
were not at the hearing, as opposed to what was supposed to be the "consideration",
of my [William Burns'] original petition, PE652 - which called for a
new Dunblane Inquiry LINK
- but they combined with the other paedophile protecters in the PPC
to butcher another of my linked petitions, PE948 on 22 March 2006 LINK
when they jointly and severally promoted the great lie that the call
for a new Dunblane Inquiry had already been "considered" by
the Committee beforehand. It had not! It had been "heard"
by their deaf ears, but had not been remotely "considered"
by them. In addition, they totally ignored the written submissions
with which members of the PPC were previously provided. They
either did not care to read the submissions, or key members of the PPC
were warned off the course by external, sinister forces and instructed
to ignore them.
According to the
parliamentary website, when consideration of PE948 was called, it was
decided that: "The Public Petitions Committee agreed to link consideration
of petition PE933, PE940 and PE948 and, on the basis of the Parliament’s
previous consideration of the issues raised, to close consideration
of these petitions." But they had NOT been considered.
Moreover, they did not even "consider" the four pages of new
evidence I provided along with PE948. LINK
The vote was unanimous so the Committee unanimously stand accused of
being liars. To dismiss something without deliberating the evidence
is not to "consider" it. They are therefore contemptible
They linked three petitions together without asking
the permission of the petitioners, Doreen Hagger, Sandra Uttley and
William Burns respectively. This makes them beneath contempt. PE948
was not even worded by the petitioner, as it transpired, but only signed
by him. It was worded by the Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee,
Dr James Johnston, one of the then 170 or so duly elected legal "bouncers"
(sometimes known as lawyers, or, more appropriately, law herdsmen) in
full-time employment in the Scottish Parliament whose advice is accepted
without question on almost every burdensome decision taken there.
Perhaps it should be asked: who truly holds the reins of power in Parliament?
But that is a question for another day.
The terms of my petition were ignored on three occasions
and the only way I could have it deemed admissible was to accept the
wording of the unscrupulous Johnston. The Committee also
lied that the families of the victims showed no interest in a renewed
inquiry. When were they asked? Only Mick North publicly viewed
an opinion without discussing it with the other families, but he does
not speak for the other families. More importantly, he does not
speak for the Scottish people.
Perhaps he was promised a "gong" for his
U-turn. Who knows?. But with the greatest respect to the
bereaved families, this is not an issue for them alone; this is central
to the legal, democratic and social structure of Scottish society and
is not to be decided upon by victims alone. When were victims
ever given the opportunity to decide what the ultimate outcome
should be in major issues of grave public concern! A social edifice
cannot be built on the grief of victims or the teardrops of a child.
When society needs renovated, no stone must be left unturned.
So who were the PPC trying to protect? Themselves?
Their Jobs? Lord Cullen? Lord Sewel (House of
The former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd (ousted on 4 October 2006)?
High-profile legal and political people who are either/both paedophiles
and/or Masons? Click on the photos above to discover that Carolyn
Leckie was the ONLY member of the PPC interested enough to act in the
On 11 August 2006, I sent all the above MSPs the following
e-mail to which only Linda Fabiani responded; answering both questions
in the negative:
Given the manner in which you, with your Public Petitions
Committee involvement, have mercilessly ignored every petition that
has called on the Scottish Parliament to conduct another inquiry into
the events surrounding the Dunblane Massacre, 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.
- Did you, or your partner, ever take the
oath of Entered Apprentice at 1st degree for the purpose of entering
into Masonic association? LINK
- Are you obliged by any expectation of
loyalty to factors outside your duties to your constituents, or
to your role as an individual, 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.
[Ed ~ Obviously, "public
perception" is given scant regard by the above MSPs because Linda
Fabiani was the only one who replied. However, Carolyn Leckie
had previously declared she was not a Freemason when my petition PE652
was heard in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday, 29 October 2003. LINK
Carolyn Leckie was also the only MSP who pushed for a renewed
inquiry. She probably knew I included her in the point of issue
because not to do so would not be in line with proper administrative
procedures. That said, females are not permitted to join the Masons,
in any event. Which is not to say that their partners or close
relatives are not Masons and are sufficiently intimate to stealthily
exert their Masonic influence or pressure on them. As far as concerns
the male members of the PPC, one would have thought that any "proud"
member of the Masons would have been only too eager to declare his affiliation.
On the other hand, one would have thought that any proud non-Mason would
have been even more eager to confirm his non-affiliation. That
aside, the public pay their representatives to listen to them and to
act accordingly. On this occasion they let down the entire nation