Cullen Inquiry (100-year
Closure Order) Petition PE652
Wednesday, 29 October 2003
Convener Michael McMahon MSP
Ms Jackie Baillie MSP
, Helen Eadie MSP
, Ms Linda Fabiani MSP
Carolyn Leckie MSP
, John Farquhar Munro MSP ,
Mr John Scott MSP (Deputy
Mike Watson MSP
, Sandra White MSP
Convener Michael McMahon
: Petition PE652 is from Mr William Burns
, who is present. LINK
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; the 100-year closure order on some files that
relate to the Cullen inquiry LINK;
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. LINK
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 or provocative".
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 the meeting. LINK
start of my oral presentation to the Public Petitions Committee
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. LINK
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
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
The Lord Advocate has stated:
"There is no statutory basis for the closure of records created
by Scottish public bodies."
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". LINK
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. LINK
The Lord 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
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.
This closure 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. LINK
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 from Tom Minogue. LINK
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. LINK
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, numbered at 1702. LINK
The Speculative Society is an offshoot of Freemasonry; it was formed
by Masons in the Canongate Kilwinning lodge in Edinburgh. LINK
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 the discourse".]
William Burns: It was widely reported
that Thomas Hamilton was in the Freemasons. LINK
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. LINK
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 Masonic
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. LINK
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. LINK
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. Is that true? LINK
Convener Michael McMahon: I think that it
is being discussed, but I do not know what stage it has reached.
It is under consideration, yes! LINK
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.
There 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. LINK
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. LINK
Robert Mark Ure, an ex-husband of a friend of Thomas Hamilton, said
[at page 2,266, on Day 18 ~ Ed.] that his
estranged wife had been to the rifle range at Queen Victoria School
with Thomas Hamilton. LINK
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 schoolmaster, Glenn Harrison, wanted
to give evidence at the Inquiry. LINK
This is ultra important in calling for a rerun. He saw—
Convener Michael McMahon: I am trying to get—
William Burns: He saw high profile people
coming into the school. LINK
Convener Michael McMahon: I fully appreciate
that you want your statements to be factually accurate—
William Burns: They took children away
for the weekend. LINK
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?]
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.
This 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? LINK
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 or whatever?
[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? LINK]
William Burns: It is about the truth.
It is not so much to get to the truth as to get the truth made public.
Sandra White: So
it is the 100-year rule that you have the problem with and you are looking
for a new inquiry. LINK
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
Sandra White: Are you saying that the
evidence that came out in the Cullen Inquiry is untrue?
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. LINK
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 wants.
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
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.
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 example, for 50
years 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 the Lord Advocate
is the appropriate person to ask or not, I think we should be asking
that question. LINK
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.
I 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, would harbour paedophiles, who
are among the most abhorred members of society. LINK
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. LINK
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 up. LINK
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 allegations would be proved
to be true. LINK
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. LINK
To make such statements—
William Burns :
Glenn Harrison, who was a schoolmaster— LINK
Convener Michael McMahon: I counsel
you not to use people's names unless you can back up your allegations
with evidence. LINK
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 LINK,
as was Michael Forsyth. LINK
Convener Michael McMahon: I fail to
see how that is relevant. You are answering Mike Watson's point.
William Burns: Lord Ross is a member
of the Speculative Society. LINK
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.
William 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.
William 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
William Burns: The embargo is illegal.
The Lord Advocate has nothing to do with it. LINK
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 rule?
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
Members indicated agreement.
Convener Michael McMahon: Thank you
very much for attending, Mr Burns.
[End of hearing]
[Ed ~ 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.
Three 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.
A response 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
The Deputy 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.
Unfortunately, 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. LINK
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. LINK
By burying 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
Curiously, by the time the decision
was taken to bury PE652, articles in the News of the World on Glenn
Harrison, the former QVS housemaster LINK,
and Lord Burton, the former Grand Master of Scottish Masons LINK,
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
Dr Mick 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. LINK
Joining the growing number of
people campaigning to overturn Lord Cullen’s 100-year closure
order is Lord (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.”
Carolyn 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. LINK
Although around half of the files were eventually released on Monday,
3 October 2005, they were redacted to such an extent they were largely
illegible. No moves have yet been made to conduct a new Inquiry
without a restrictive remit and PE652 was buried with scant consideration.
To view the petitioner's correspondence with the
Cullen Inquiry, gagged by Lord Cullen's 100-year
closure order, click the red button.