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 1969).
around the outside are even more culpable than the above members of
the Public Petitions Committee (PPC).
excluded since she later motioned the Scottish Executive in her own
right for a fresh probe into the Dunblane massacre.
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
- but they combined with the other paedophile
protecters to butcher another of my linked petitions, PE948
on 22 March 2006 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 deaf ears, but certainly
not remotely "considered". In addition, the written
submissions with which members of the PPC
were previously provided were totally ignored by them. They
either did not care to read the submissions, or key members of the PPC
were warned off the course by external, sinister forces to ignore them.
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
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
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) 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.
of my petition used 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.
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.
were the PPC trying to protect? Themselves?
Their Jobs? Lord
(House of Lords)? 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 public interest.
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
- 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.
~ 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
has heard in the Scottish Parliament
on Wednesday, 29 October 2003.
Carolyn Leckie was also the only MSP
to push 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
act accordingly. On this occasion they let down the entire nation