(100-year Closure Order) Petition PE652
, Helen Eadie MSP
, Ms Linda Fabiani MSP
, John Farquhar Munro MSP ,
John Scott MSP (Deputy Convener )
MSP , Sandra
: Petition PE652
is from Mr William Burns
, who is present. The petition calls
on the Scottish Parliament to consider a
range of issues, including initiating a new inquiry
into events that relate to the Dunblane Massacre;
closure order on some files that relate to
the Cullen inquiry; and membership by the
Scottish judiciary of the Freemasons, the
Speculative Society and other similar organisations.
Mr Burns has supplied a considerable amount
of material with his petition, with the
specific request that it be made available in full to all members
of the Committee. Accordingly, a
copy of all the material provided has been issued to each
member with their meeting papers.
Before we begin, I make
it clear that the committee has been advised by the Parliament's
legal office that it would not be within the competence of the Parliament
to overturn a court order, and that those sections of the full petition
that call for such action are therefore inadmissible. The petitioner
has been advised of that and has indicated to the clerks that he disagrees
with the advice, which he has the right to do.
For legal reasons, the
full text of the petition was removed temporarily
from the Parliament's website. The
clerks were advised that it could be argued that certain statements
made in the petition are defamatory and
that, because the petition has not yet been
considered as part of the proceedings of the Parliament,
the publication of the petition on the website
could leave the Parliament open to defamation
action. Guidance on the submission of petitions
states clearly that petitions should not
"include language which is intemperate, inflammatory, sarcastic
The petitioner has been
advised of the reasons for the temporary removal of his petition
and that it will be reinstated on the website immediately after
start of my oral presentation to the Public Petitions
William Burns: I do not think there
is anyone in Scotland who now believes that
the Cullen Inquiry into the Dunblane
Massacre was anything other than a Masonic
Whitewash. The 100-year
“Gagging Order” on my correspondence
with the inquiry confirms that. This
Committee was provided with copies
of my documents, so it cannot now ignore the existence
of that solid evidence.
At the time of the inquiry,
Lord Cullen claimed there was no evidence
of child sex-abuse in relation to Thomas
Hamilton and his connections, but seven years later,
Lord Cullen uses the fact that there was
evidence of child sex-abuse to place a “Gagging
Order” on the files, claiming it was imposed to
protect the names of victims, even though most of the files that have
been buried do not mention any names of victims. My own files
fall into that category. It must be clear to the Committee that
the only reason the content of my letters to Lord Cullen
were “gagged” was precisely to keep the Masonic
implication out of the equation; therefore out of the public eye.
Lord Advocate has stated: "There is
no statutory basis for the closure of records created by Scottish
Those are his words,
not mine. They were produced in a publication on 18 March 2003
by the Scottish
Executive - News Online, under the heading: "Dunblane
police reports released".
That disclosure alone
makes a mockery of the Clerk to the Committee, Steve Farrell’s
view that it is not within the competence of the Parliament
to overturn or interfere with the terms of such an order. The
Scottish Parliament is the only body with
the power to create a framework for imposing closure orders;
but it must do so in the public interest, not in the interest of collaborators
in secret societies.
Advocate goes on to say: "The Public
Records (Scotland) Act 1937 makes provision for the
preservation, care and custody of the public records of Scotland. The
terms of the legislation are permissive."
That means they are lenient,
tolerant or liberal, reflecting a belief that there should be as few
restraints as possible. “Preservation, custody and care
of records” do not mean the exact opposite: the “smotheration,
stash and snare” of public records.
The report continues:
"By contrast, in England and Wales the Public Records Act 1958
(as amended by the Public Records Act 1967) sets a statutory 'closure
period' of 30 years, after which records must, with limited exceptions,
be made available to the public. The 1937 Scottish Act
does not impose similar obligations on Executive departments, but
IN PRACTICE those procedures are followed in Scotland."
The phrase "in practice"
means nothing and could be replaced with the words “convenience”,
“habit”, “obsession”, “fixation”,
“weakness” or a number of other meaningless slogans.
Even tradition has no authority in law. The fact that something
is widespread practice does not create a power that Parliament
has denied or for which it has not legislated.
Since there is no framework
for closure orders in Scotland,
I am calling on Parliament to enact unequivocal
legislation to prevent people with a vested interest from burying
evidence and diverting the onus on to everyone from judges to procurators
fiscal, to the police, to clerks and to
every Tom, Dick and Harry chosen for the purpose, so that the real
culprits can distance themselves from their illicit undertakings.
order was enforced not to protect the names of the children
concerned, who are now adults, but to protect the names of very high-profile
Masons and paedophiles.
Helen Eadie: In January 2003, the Justice
2 Committee agreed to take no further action on a similar
petition, with the proviso that it would
consider revisiting the issue if there were evidence of specific cases
in which difficulties had arisen over judicial membership of the Freemasons
or the Speculative Society. The
Public Petitions Committee believes that
it is one thing to make statements and allegations, but another to
provide evidence. Do you have evidence that we could refer to
the justice committees?
[Ed. ~ The petition
to which Helen Eadie referred was PE306
Minogue. There was indeed no further
action taken on this petition, but the Justice
2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament
neglected its duty to address the requests made in PE306,
despite the fact that Parliament insists
petitioners "clearly show in their petitions
the nature of the remedy or action sought". By refusing
to address the remedy or action sought in PE306,
the Justice 2 Committee was able to callously
"bury" it. This gave all the other Committees carte
blanche to conveniently resurrect the Justice 2 Committee's
decision on PE306 in order to scupper petitions
of a similar nature, claiming, falsely, that the issue had been previously
dealt with in PE306. To this day,
it has still not been explained to Tom Minogue
the reasons why PE306 was unsuccessful.]
William Burns: The Committee has my initial
letters asking Lord Cullen whether he was
a Freemason, on which a 100-year
closure order was placed. I know for a fact that
it is a Masonic ruse to get someone else
to deny that you are a Mason. It is
another ruse that someone who is asked whether he is a Freemason
can say that he is not — he has to be asked whether he has ever
taken the oath
of an Entered Apprentice. Lord Cullen
used the ruse of getting someone else to deny that he had been a Mason
when he got Glynis McKeand, the Clerk to the Cullen
Inquiry, to telephone me to deny it. To my everlasting
regret, I took that as read at the time. Later I found out that
he is an extraordinary member of the Speculative Society,
at 1702. The Speculative Society
is an offshoot of Freemasonry; it was formed
by Masons in the Canongate
Kilwinning lodge in Edinburgh. That
is a fact; it is a Masonic set-up.
Helen Eadie: I will press this issue
a little bit further because it is one thing for you to give us hearsay,
allegations and statements, but it is quite another to provide substantive
evidence. I ask you again, do you have substantive evidence
that can be referred to the Justice 2 Committee,
which said that it would consider revisiting the matter if substantive
evidence was provided?
William Burns: Are you asking for
evidence of the Speculative Society?
Helen Eadie: Either.
William Burns: I have the whole list
here of members of the Speculative Society
and Cullen is on it.
Convener Michael McMahon: I do not
doubt that the list exists, Mr Burns. Helen
Eadie is asking whether you have any evidence that connects
members of that society to any decision that has been made and the
impact of that decision, so that we can take the petition
further. [Ed. ~ That was NOT what Helen
Eadie was asking. I had in front of me the evidence
of Cullen's denial
of being a Freemason. I also had the
list of Spec members, but McMahon
was unintersted in it. His intent seemd only to "divert
William Burns: It was widely reported
Hamilton was in the Freemasons. While
evidence was being given, I was reading the papers on a daily basis
and I asked Lord Cullen to ask every witness
whether they were in the Freemasons.
It looks as if there was a cover-up
to protect Thomas Hamilton over many years.
The evidence is in my submission and in the embargoed documents that
have been put under the 100-year closure order. Why
else would Lord Cullen put the documents
on a 100-year closure order? They
do not mention one name of a child victim. I do not know
the names of any of the child victims. The only thing I referred
to was Freemasonry and Cullen
has embargoed my letters to protect Freemasonry.
That is obvious if you read the letters — there is no
other reason. It is the Masonic implication
that has been buried, as far as my letters are concerned. I
am asking you why else Cullen would have
buried the documents. He has done it because they expose the
Jackie Baillie: In your view, that is critical
to the wider issue. From what the Lord Advocate
has said about this matter, I understand that evidence of any child's
name had been removed from police reports
and they were ready to be released. The National
Archives of Scotland is producing a full catalogue of
all the material and submissions. As you will appreciate,
there is a huge volume of material. The Lord
Advocate has gone on record as saying that when that
catalogue is complete, he will consider
what material can be released and whether all the material
should stay under the 100-year closure order. I
would have thought that would go some way to satisfying your concerns. Am
I misreading the situation?
William Burns: You are not misreading
it; I see where you are coming from, but it could take another 99
years to release material.
Jackie Baillie: I would hope not.
William Burns: So many high-profile
people are involved that that could be another ruse to put the public
off. It is the Parliament's duty to
insist on having another
inquiry so that we can be done
with all this nonsense. It is just another stalling tactic.
My correspondence with Cullen should be
accessible right now because there is nothing in it about any children;
it is about the Masonic implication and
that is the only reason why my correspondence has been buried.
Carolyn Leckie: I am particularly interested
in the evidence you provided that show the amendments to the archived
references to your correspondence and that does cause me concern that
that had to be expanded, and obviously it was acknowledged that the
correspondence did take place, and some of the subjects you were raising
were necessary to be put on the archives. It concerns me that
they had to be amended. If someone was doing a research of the
material you mentioned, in the first two examples your name was not
mentioned. I do share some of your concerns about what evidence
has already been placed in the public domain. Will you expand
on any correspondence that you have had in relation to what is currently
not in the public domain? What evidence do you believe is not
already in the public domain?
I am a member of Unison,
which asks in its application form if you are a member of the Freemasons.
I agree that people have the right to ask that question. In
the explanations that you have received, has it been explained why
that question is not considered to be legitimate? Mr Burns
has raised legitimate questions about the 100-year closure
order and its relationship with the powers of the Parliament.
I believe that the Parliament
should consider investigating the matter and perhaps creating a framework
to state how long a closure should last and what is acceptable and
what goes a wee bit too far.
William Burns: I believe that there
is to be legislation to compel MSPs to declare
whether they are members of the Freemasons.
Convener Michael McMahon: I think that it
is being discussed, but I do not know what stage it has reached.
is under consideration, yes!
Carolyn Leckie: I make it clear that I am
not a Mason — I am a woman and I would
not be allowed anyway.
William Burns: If no one has anything
to hide, they should state that. Members of the judiciary should
declare whether they are Freemasons, especially
when they are judging civil cases. Freemasons
take an oath of allegiance to one another so, if the judge and the
plaintiff are both in the Freemasons, they
will protect one another, as the fifth of the Five Points
of Fellowship states that members must support a brother
in his absence as in his presence. That is the most important
oath that Masons take, so how can such a
judge be impartial? Even if the judge tried to be impartial,
non-Freemasons will perceive that he will
be partial. Public perception is all-important.
are more than 3,000 pages in the transcript of the Cullen
Inquiry. Three people who gave evidence
mentioned QUEEN VICTORIA BOARDING SCHOOL. Thomas
Hamilton had access to the gun club in that school,
where he also got a job for a teacher. He had a van from Central
Regional Council to use for transporting children at the Queen
Victoria School. However, there was not one mention
of Queen Victoria School in Cullen's
Report. I have the transcript of the pages that it
appears in. Ian
Steven Boal was referred to on page 1803. He was
a teacher at Queen Victoria School; Thomas
Hamilton got him the job. On page 286, Grace
Jones Ogilvie, a neighbour, said that Thomas
Hamilton used to get a van from Central Region for camps
at Loch Lomondside and Queen Victoria School. Robert
Mark Ure, an ex-husband of a friend of Thomas
Hamilton, said [Ed. ~ at page
2,267, on page 47 on Day 18] that his estranged wife had been
to the rifle range at Queen Victoria School
with Thomas Hamilton. Thomas
Hamilton had all that access to Queen Victoria
School, but there was not one mention of the school
in Lord Cullen's Report. A
Harrison, wanted to give evidence at the
Inquiry. This is ultra important
in calling for a rerun. He saw—
Convener Michael McMahon: I am trying to
William Burns: He saw high
profile people coming into the school.
Convener Michael McMahon: I fully appreciate
that you want your statements to be factually accurate—
William Burns: They took
children away for the weekend.
Convener Michael McMahon: What I am asking
about is the relevance of the information to the petition
and where it is taking us. [Ed. ~ Why did McMahon
divert the discourse from this crucial evidence?]
Sandra White: Dunblane
was a terrible tragedy. Nobody wants anything like that to happen
again. My concern about the decision at the time —
it did not arise just from the petition
— related to the 100-year rule.
I do not want to indicate to the petitioner that any decision that
the Committee makes may lead to a witch hunt
of people who he may have named or who may not have been named, but
I am concerned about the 100-year rule.
may be a hurtful question to Mr Burns, but
it has to be answered. Is the reason that you have brought the
petition to the committee to get to the
truth of what happened at Dunblane, or is
it a witch
hunt of people who are members of a Freemasonry
lodge? I am concerned by some of the language that you use. I
am not a member of any such organisation, but I do not think that
we should carry out a witch hunt of people
who are members of a union or any other organisation. I want
a simple yes or no answer. Have you brought the petition
to the Committee to get to the truth and to prevent another Dunblane
or to have a witch hunt of people who are
members of secular societies, the Freemasons
[Ed. ~ I had already clearly clarified
in my written submissions to the Committee that there was no
witch hunt - in these selfsame
terms - so why was Sandra White trying to
put on the record that the the opposite might have been the case?]
William Burns: It is about the truth.
It is not so much to get to the truth as to get the truth
Sandra White: So
it is the 100-year rule that you have the
problem with and you are looking for a new
William Burns: Obviously I want the
100-year rule to be removed because that
explains a lot on its own, but I want the truth revealed about what
happened in Dunblane. What is worse
than the murders themselves is the cover-up after
they took place. That is even worse because they could happen
again and again.
Sandra White: Are you saying that
the evidence that came out in the Cullen Inquiry
William Burns: The truth was smothered!
Not only was a gagging order put on the
files, but a gagging order was put on witnesses. Glenn
Harrison, a schoolmaster at Queen
Victoria School, wanted to give evidence. He had
been claiming for years that children were getting abused. He
ended up getting moved away out. He is now living on an island
away up in the north of Scotland —
he got taken right out.
Convener Michael McMahon: I am trying
to keep the discussion focused on what the petition
is asking for.
Sandra White: I am trying to focus on that.
There are three recommendations that Mr Burns
asks for. There’s a new inquiry
and the 100-year ruling as well. I
am trying to establish whether a new
inquiry would satisfy what he
Convener Michael McMahon: There is
also the question of whether we can ask for such an inquiry.
William Burns: We need a new open
and honest inquiry.
Convener Michael McMahon: Do members have
any points or do they want to make recommendations on where we take
Helen Eadie: Perhaps we could write to
the Lord Advocate to ask him to give an
indication of the time scale for the publication of the catalogue
that Jackie Baillie mentioned on the Cullen
Inquiry material and to inform us of any subsequent
decisions on the release of material or any variations to the closure
period. If we had that information from the Lord
Advocate, then I think I would be happy with that as
a way forward to help this petition.
Mike Watson: There is an issue to do with the 100-year
rule, although I am not sure whether we would get all that much further
forward if we asked for it to be rescinded, because I understand that
the normal rule in such a situation is 75 years. That would
still not serve anybody who is currently in the room.
[Ed. ~ Mike Watson
is totally wrong! There is NO statutory basis for closure orders
of any description in Scotland. Not
100 years, not 75 years, not even one year.
In England and Wales there are statutory instruments for imposing
closure orders. A closure
order might be imposed for 50 years, for example, after
a major war when it is deemed to be in the national interest.]
I think it might be useful
to get some answers to the points that Mr Burns
has made. We have been told that the 100-year
rule was brought in to protect the children and the children's children
ultimately. Although that argument may have some resonance,
Mr Burns has made the point that some of
the information that is retained has nothing to do with children and
does not mention them. That particular point should be queried. Whether
Advocate is the appropriate person to ask
or not, I think we should be asking that question.
I was not happy that
Sandra White equated being a member of a
trade union - which everyone at work should be - with being a member
of the Freemasons.
was a bit concerned about one of the comments that Mr Burns
made in his opening statement. He felt that the Freemasons
were harbouring paedophiles, which is an
extremely serious allegation to make. I am prepared to believe
that it is likely that Freemasons would
help one another to get jobs or promotions, but I have difficulty
in getting my head round the idea that senior law officers, for example,
paedophiles, who are among the
most abhorred members of society. Unless Mr Burns
has firmer evidence, that sort of allegation does not serve his case,
but weakens it. The allegation that senior
law officers would hide paedophiles
simply because they were members of the Masons
or a similar organisation is so serious that very few ordinary people
in the street would believe it. I do not want to sound patronising,
but I do not believe that that allegation helps his case.
William Burns: That point needs to be answered
right away. I have friends who are Freemasons.
I am talking about high-profile people — law lords
and politicians — who are paedophiles
and are being covered
Convener Michael McMahon: Mr
Burns, you are again making allegations
which, unless you substantiate them—
William Burns: If there were another
inquiry, that would all come out and my
would be proved to be true.
Convener Michael McMahon: If you
have evidence of that, you should not be talking to the Public
Petitions Committee; you should be referring
it to the police. To make
William Burns :
Harrison, who was a schoolmaster—
Convener Michael McMahon: I
counsel you not to use people's names unless you can back up your
with evidence. We are getting on to very dangerous
ground. I am trying to be helpful to you. [Ed.
~ He was not trying to be helpful, he was styming my petition.]
William Burns: I will drop that for
the moment. I know that Lord Cullen
became Lord President, but his boss at the
time - Lord
Ross, the Lord Justice-Clerk - was on the board of directors
of Queen Victoria Boarding School, as was
Convener Michael McMahon: I fail to
see how that is relevant. You are answering Mike Watson's
William Burns: Lord Ross
is a member of the Speculative
Convener Michael McMahon: I do not
think that we need to have a roll call of who are members of what
organisations. I do not see how that serves your petition
in any way.
Burns: I am answering Mr Watson
Convener Michael McMahon: I fail
to see how your line of argument does that.
William Burns: Mr Watson
said that he could not believe that Freemasons
would protect paedophiles. I know
a prominent Freemason whom members of the
Committee will probably all have met. He stands outside on the
first Wednesday of every month. He backs the exposure of any
Freemason who is the subject of the kind
of allegations that I am making.
Convener Michael McMahon: I am asking
you to be very careful. You are making allegations about a connection
between an organisation and paedophilia. I
am asking you not to go down that route. You are using people's
names and accusing them— [Ed.
~ Why was McMahon advising/warning me not
to go down that route?]
William Burns: I am talking about
high-profile Freemasons, as opposed to Freemasonry
as a whole.
Convener Michael McMahon: Mike
Watson made the point that it does not help for you
to go on in the way in which you have done.
Burns: I think that I am helping the cause, to
get a rerun of the inquiry.
Michael McMahon: We will have some more questions.
Carolyn Leckie: Such suspicions are
inevitable when a gagging order is placed
on evidence. There are legitimate questions to be asked about
why certain evidence has not yet been put into the public domain if
the reason for that - to protect children - has not been substantiated. Whether
or not the suspicions are true, their existence is inevitable.
I also think that there
is enough concern in society about organised child abuse for legitimate
questions to be asked. I am certainly of the view that people
who abuse children exist in every layer of society. When there
is secrecy, there is bound to be suspicion. The specific recommendations
before us talk about the wider implications of the ability to have
a 100-year rule, and I do think that one
of the Justice Committees should look at
that and we should pursue this further. I am quite happy if
the committee wishes to write to the Lord Advocate
as well, and perhaps if we are in a position to exert some pressure
to get answers to some questions or get some evidence from the Cullen
Inquiry that has not yet been put in the public domain,
then there would maybe then be information and evidence that would
support the demand for another inquiry.
But, logically, getting to the bottom of what exists as a result of
the original Inquiry comes first.
Convener Michael McMahon: The difficulty
is that the petition does not ask for that.
That is not to say that we cannot—
William Burns : I am asking now!
Convener Michael McMahon:: We have to be
careful about how petitions are dealt with.
If we consider a petition, we have to know
what its aim is. The aim of petition
PE652 gives us a couple of options. It
has been suggested that we take the matter up with the Lord
Advocate. That does not—
William Burns: The Lord Advocate
has nothing to do with it!
Convener Michael McMahon: Mr Burns,
Carolyn, the recommendation is that questions be asked of the Lord
Advocate. Responses will come back, which
will allow us to decide what further action we want to take on the
petition. However, to agree to write
to the Lord Advocate seeking an indication
of the time scale for the publication of the full catalogue is a starting
point for taking the petition further before
we ask anybody else to consider the petition.
William Burns: The embargo is illegal.
Advocate has nothing to do with it.
Convener Michael McMahon: Mr Burns,
I am sorry. We are trying to agree to some recommendations to
act on the petition.
William Burns: There is no power to
impose the 100-year closure rule!
[Ed. ~ Despite the Freedom of Information
Act that came into force on 1st January 2005, the Lord
Advocate Colin Boyd still illegally refused
to release the closed files. He finally released half
of them on 3 October 2005, on orders from the Scottish Executive,
but in a much redacted almost illegible form.]
Eadie: Convener, you have summed up the views
of other Committee Members. I would happily endorse your recommendation.
Convener Michael McMahon: Do members
Mike Watson: Does that mean that we
are delaying the question about the 100-year
Convener Michael McMahon: No,
we are asking about it. We are asking for a time scale.
William Burns: That will take another
Convener Michael McMahon: If the Lord
Advocate replies on the time scale for announcing publication
of the full catalogue, we can ask for more information on the 100-year
rule and its use. That would be a legitimate part of pursuing the
petition. Does the Committee agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Convener Michael McMahon: Thank you
very much for attending, Mr Burns.
[End of hearing]
The Committee agreed to write to the Lord Advocate
seeking, (a) further details of the framework under which a decision
to impose a closure order of 100 years can
be made, (b) confirmation as to why certain evidence that does not
name specific children also appears to be subject to this 100-year
closure order, and (c) an indication of the timescales
for publication of the full catalogue of Cullen Inquiry
material by the National Archives of Scotland
and for any subsequent decisions on the release of material and variations
of the closure period.
days after the hearing, I wrote to the
Public Petitions Committee,
illustrating my displeasure at them taking the futile step of writing
to the Lord Advocate.
I would later receive from the Crown Office
on behalf of the Lord Advocate, dated 28
June 2004, said: “Although your correspondence with Lord
Cullen does not refer to children the decision was taken
not to release any material until it had been catalogued by officials
at the National Archives of Scotland.”
Keeper of Rolls at the National Archives of Scotland
sent me a letter dated 4 March 2004 in which a description was placed
on every individual letter between the Cullen Inquiry
and me. The National Archives of Scotland
had no problem whatsoever locating that particular file, COM21/4/105/1
and letting it be known that my correspondence had been “yoked”
together with Thomas Hamilton material filed
at COM21/4/105/2. When I wrote asking the Lord Advocate,
Colin Boyd, why he had such great difficulty locating
these files when the National Archives of Scotland
found it a simple task, all the embargoed files were removed from
the National Archives of Scotland and taken
to the Crown Office.
despite the plethora of supportive evidence with which I provided
the Public Petitions Committee, they seemed
to have neither the inclination nor the
courage to properly address this important petition, and
none of the six remedies sought in the requests I made were addressed. My
petition PE652 was "buried", just
as though it never existed. At the "discussion"
about a subsequent petition I had submitted (PE685),
the Committee "settled" the issue by declaring in public
documents: "The Committee considered petitions PE652
alongside new petition PE685. The
Committee agreed to write again to the Lord Advocate
seeking further information in relation to petition PE685
and to take no
further action on petition PE652.
PE652, the original petition, the Public
Petitions Committee were able to only consider whether
or not the 100-year closure order should
be reversed, and ignore the principal reason PE652
was submitted in the first place; calling for a renewed Dunblane
Inquiry with no restrictive remit. Shame on them!
by the time the decision was taken to bury PE652,
articles in the News of the World on Glenn
Harrison, the former QVS
housemaster, and Lord
Burton, the former Grand Master of Scottish
Masons, had long since corroborated what
I told the Committee at the hearing of my petition on 29 October 2003
– but to no avail, despite the fact I drew the attention of
the Committee to the articles before they made their decision.
The Glenn Harrison article was in the 9
November 2003 edition and the Lord Burton
article appeared in the 28 December 2003 edition.
North, a retired university lecturer, whose daughter Sophie was murdered
in the 1996 Massacre, branded Lord
Cullen’s Inquiry “a
piece of theatre” in an article in the Daily
Mail on 10 March 2004.
the growing number of people campaigning to overturn Lord
Cullen’s 100-year closure order
(Norman) Tebbit, the former Home Secretary who told the
Scotland on Sunday (17 October 2004), “It’s
fairly clear that many people think the ‘sensitive’ material
is sensitive not to the children of Dunblane,
or their relatives, but to other people who perhaps knew more about
Hamilton than they have thus far admitted.”
Leckie MSP resigned from the Committee and filed a motion
in the Scottish Parliament to the effect
that she believes, inter alia, that the Cullen Inquiry
bears the hallmarks of a cover-up, and calls
for a new inquiry, without a restrictive
remit, to be set up without delay. Although around half of the
files were eventually released on Monday, 3 October 2005, they were
redacted to such an extent that they were largely illegible.
No moves have yet been made to conduct a new Inquiry
without a restrictive remit.]
To view the petitioner's
correspondence with the
Cullen Inquiry, gagged by Lord
closure order, click the red button.