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).
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 deaf ears, but 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 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
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) 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
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.
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
So who were the PPC trying
to protect? Themselves? Their Jobs? Lord Cullen? Lord
Sewel (House of Lords)? LINK
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?
- 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 was heard
in the Scottish Parliament
on Wednesday, 29 October 2003. LINK
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 diabolically.]