100-Year Closure Order
- Cullen Inquiry - PE652
10 June 2003
I, the undersigned,
declare that the decision to impose a 100-year closure
order on the Petitioner's correspondence with the
Cullen Inquiry into the Dunblane massacre, filed
at COM21/4/105/1-2 with the National Archives of
was indefensible, an impediment to natural justice,
and contrary to the public interest, and which,
according to the Crown Office itself, "has no statutory
basis for such closure orders in Scotland".
18 Shore Road
A. copies of the correspondence
with the Petitioner and the Cullen Inquiry between 11 April and
23 August 1996 inclusive, amounting to five letters from the Petitioner
and five letters in response from the Cullen Inquiry, all of which
were put on a 100-year closure order (11xA/4 sheets); LINK
B. letter to the Lord President Lord Cullen dated
27 February 2003, enquiring why the Petitioner's correspondence
with him were put on a 100-year closure order (5xA/4 sheets); LINK
C. photocopy of the "first" description of the National
Archives of Scotland's files of the Petitioner's embargoed documents
(1xA/4 sheet); LINK
D. photocopy of amended description of the National
Archives of Scotland's files of the Petitioner's embargoed documents
(1xA/4 sheet); LINK
E. photocopies of correspondence with the Petitioner
and the National Archives of Scotland, which includes the current
amended description of File COM21/4/105/1-2 (4xA/4 sheets); LINK
F. photocopies of two letters to the Lord Advocate
and one response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Department
thereto (6xA/4 sheets).
1. It is hoped that the
Petitioner can introduce enough evidence here to influence
the Committee sufficiently to make recommendations
to the appropriate authorities in the Scottish Parliament
to (i) enforce the reversal of the decision to impose
a 100-year closure order on my correspondence with
the Cullen Inquiry into the Dunblane massacre, filed
at COM21/4/105/1-2 in the National Archives of Scotland;
and (ii) enact legislation requiring members of the
judiciary, and perhaps others employed in the legal
profession, and public office, to declare if they
are members of organisations such as Masonry, as it
is a cause of increasing concern to the public.
2. It is also hoped that,
in the public interest, no members of organisations
such as those mentioned above, preside over this Petition,
because the final determination could not possibly
be perceived as impartial by the public.
3. Apart from being an exclusive
and secretive subculture of self-interest, organisations
such as Freemasonry are perceived to be a triumph
of mediocrity, which have in them the seeds of menace
and as such could be a threat to the established order.
4. In the experiences of
many non-Masons, far too many talentless nobodies,
in most walks of life, reach position well beyond
their merits, while more naturally talented non-Masons
must stand back and be greeted with token gestures
of encouragement. This is not the unfounded
claims of someone with sour grapes, as it were; this
is the real world. Masonry has for centuries
been the key to preferment in most walks of life.
Even if some among you have the misconceived
notion, through some involuntary loyalty to protect
fellow politicians, friends or associates who might
have become unwittingly, or otherwise, embroiled in
the Cullen and/or other cover-ups, in any big or small
way, and you find you are unable to be part of what
you might claim in your lack of wisdom to be a witch
hunt of past transgressors LINK,
you still have a solemn and moral duty to at least
ensure that such whitewashes are a thing of the past,
and do your utmost to prevent them happening again,
beginning by supporting this Petition.
6. Your first duty is a
duty of care to the people of Scotland, not to fellow
politicians, members of the legal profession, or to
other civil servants. It is incumbent on you,
therefore, to lend your support to this Petition;
thus ensuring that such atrocities can never again
be covered up by operatives in secret societies.
7. Please do not pretend
that Masonry is not a "secret society", just because
everyone knows it exists, but that it should more
appropriately be referred to as a "society with secrets".
By that same token, the secret services could not
be called secret services because everyone knows they
exist. That particular means of "diverting the
discourse" (a Masonic ruse to distract detractors
from the true path and throw them off at a tangent)
ran out of steam more years ago than I care to remember.
8. The real reason Masonry
claims it is a "society with secrets" and not a "secret
society" is that under the "Unlawful Societies Act
1799", it is illegal in Britain to be a member of
a "secret society". It is also unlawful under
this Act for Masons to have meetings because gatherings
in lodges are only permitted if yearly returns, providing
names, addresses, and description of brethren are
submitted to the local Clerks of Peace, or to the
present-day equivalent. You can see where the dilemma
lies here for Freemasonry when members of the public
- who can see no other logical or apparent reason
for whitewashes and cover-ups to occur, such as the
Cullen Inquiry - request Grand Lodge to verify if
certain characters are members of their organisation.
Invariably, Grand Lodge refuses to provide any names.
Without producing names, most gatherings in Masonic
lodges are in breach of the Unlawful Societies Act
1799. Are we surprised then to learn that the
legal profession is inundated with Masons!
(Masons jealously guard their secrets, as divulged
by former Master Mason, Rev Charles G Finney at Section
Initiators into Masonry at the 1st Degree or Entered
Apprentice level are subjected to a debasing ritual,
which includes bloodcurdling oaths with threats of
torture and death, and these oaths supersede any other
oath they are likely to take in their entire life.
Very few do not take their oaths seriously because
they know how vulnerable they are to unaccountable
people, and how easily those unaccountable people
can cover up even the most transparent acts of iniquity.
The Cullen Inquiry into the events leading up to and
including the Dunblane massacre of 16 schoolchildren
and their teacher at Dunblane Primary School on 13
March 1996 is a perfect example of how easy it is
to conduct a whitewash into atrocities. Three
examples of Masonic oaths are quoted below at Section
2. Quotes by Authors and other Famous People
about Masons and Masonry
"Freemasonry cannot be known from a perusal of the
eulogistic books which adhering Masons have written.
Of course, they are under oath to in no way whatever
reveal the secrets of Masonry. But it is their
‘secrets’ the public want to know.
Now their eulogistic books, as any one may know who
will examine them, are silly, and for the most part,
little better than twaddle. If we read their
orations and sermons that have been published in support
of Masonry, and the books they have written, we shall
find much that is silly, much that is false, and a
great deal more that is mere bombast and rhodomontade."
Rev Charles G Finney - author of Characters
and Claims of Freemasonry. Charles G Finney
is a former Master Mason who went through the first
three degrees of Masonry, but after becoming a Christian
he renounced his membership of his lodge and the Craft
of Freemasonry, realising the uniqueness and the divine
sovereignty of Jesus Christ, and that Christianity
and Freemasonry are not compatible.
2. "It [Masonry] has been
purposely formulated in the first place by inventively
deceitful minds of long ago, and kept alive by similar
ones of today. It might well be defined as the
'Craft of the Crafty'." Martin Short - author
of Inside the Brotherhood.
First Degree or Entered Apprentice Penalty:
"Under no less a penalty than that of having my throat
cut from ear to ear, my tongue torn out by the roots,
and with my body buried in the rough sands of the
sea, a cable length from the shore, where the tide
ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should
I ever knowingly or willingly violate this, my solemn
obligation as an Entered Apprentice, so help me God,
and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the
same." Jack Harris, former Worshipful Master in Freemasonry
- author of Freemasonry.
"Let it be known that adhering Masons do not profess
to publish their secrets; therefore we cannot tell
from what they write what they are under oath to do."
Rev Charles G Finney - former Master Mason and author
of Characters and Claims of Freemasonry.
5. "The movement as a whole,
is a development of cunning." Martin Short -
author of Inside the Brotherhood.
6. At this period ... the
partisans of evil seem to be combining together, and
to be struggling with united vehemence, led on or
assisted by the strongly organised and widespread
association called the Freemasons. No longer
making any secret of their purposes, they are now
boldly rising up against God Himself. ... The sect
of Freemasons grew with a rapidity beyond conception
in the course of a century and a half, until it came
to be able, by means of fraud or audacity, to gain
entrance into every rank of the State as to seem to
be almost its ruling power." Pope Leo XIII,
author of the Papal Bull Humanum Genus (The Race of
7. Most Freemasons are prepared
to say that Masonry had an influence 'then' [generations
ago] - never now." Stephen Knight - author of
“Freemasons are a set of imbeciles who meet
to make good cheer and perform ridiculous fooleries."
Napoleon I to Barry E O'Meara at St Helena,
2 Nov. 1816.
9. “I have little
more to add than thanks for your wishes, and favourable
sentiments, except to correct an error you have run
into of my presiding over English lodges in this country.
The fact is I preside over none, nor have I been in
one more than once or twice in the last thirty years.”
George Washington at Mount Vernon, 25 September 1798,
before his death, as he warned the whole of America
to beware of secret societies.
10. “Freemasonry and
paranoia were made for each other; they deserve each
other.” Martin Short – author of Inside
Third Degree Penalty: “Under no less a penalty
than that of having my body severed in twain, my bowel
taken thence, and with my body burned to ashes, and
those ashes scattered to the four winds of Heaven,
so that there might remain name, trace nor remembrance
of so vile a wretch as I would be, should I ever knowingly
or willingly violate this, my most solemn obligation,
as a Master Mason, so help me God, and keep me steadfast
in the due performance of the same.” Jack
Harris, former Worshipful Master in Freemasonry –
author of Freemasonry.
12. “Masonry is a
collection of pagan rites, initiations and religions
of Egypt, and the worship of the sun god, sprinkled
with enough biblical terminology to deceive the unsuspecting.”
Jack Harris, former Worshipful Master – author
13. “Talkative Philanthropy
which is opposed to Christian charity with such pomp
is often the passport for Masonic business.”
Pope Leo XIII, 8 Dec. 1892.
“Masonry’s organisations from most walks
of life provide one of the most efficient private
intelligence networks imaginable. Private
information on anybody in the country could normally
be accessed very rapidly through endless permutations
of Masonic contacts – police, magistrates, solicitors,
bank managers, post office workers (very useful in
obtaining a copy of a man’s mail), doctors,
government employees, etc. A dossier of
personal data can be built up on anybody very quickly.”
Stephen Knight – author of The Brotherhood.
15. “For a religious
or quasi-religious organisation such as Freemasonry
to offer prayers and worship to God from which the
name of Jesus Christ has been deliberately excluded
represents the abandonment of the Christian faith
which it nevertheless professes to uphold.”
Walton Hannah, Church of England clergyman –
author of Darkness Visible.
"Masons are sworn to persecute unto death anyone
who violates Masonic obligations.” Former
Master Mason, Rev Charles G Finney – author
of Characters and Claims of Freemasonry.
“Solicitors are past masters at causing endless
delays, generating useless paperwork, ignoring instructions,
running up immense bills, and misleading clients into
taking decisions damaging to themselves.”
Stephen Knight – author of The Brotherhood
10th Degree Penalty – Scottish Rite: “And
in failure of this obligation, I consent to have my
body opened perpendicularly, and to be exposed for
eight hours in the open air, that the venomous flies
may eat of my entrails, my head to be cut off and
put on the highest pinnacle of the world and I will
always be ready to inflict the same punishment on
those who shall 'disclose this degree and break
this obligation', so help me God and maintain
me, Amen." Jack Harris, former Worshipful Master
in Freemasonry – author of Freemasonry.
19. “How can men allow
themselves to be drawn into a fraternity whose rituals
require a total suspension of belief and a taste for
the occult?” Martin Short –
author of Inside the Brotherhood.
“Possessing no secrets in the ordinary meaning
of the word, Freemasonry has no need of secrecy.
Its members are proud to be Freemasons and have no
desire to hide the fact of their membership from the
world at large. The Craft itself can and will
face its opponents with no weapons other than honesty
and truth. It will rebut lies with truth, oppose
hatred with tolerance, and endure mockery with resignation;
it has no need to emulate the moral turpitude of its
opponents, for it knows that it is guilty of no crime
and of no sin. Secure in this knowledge it will
advance as it always has done the cause of justice
and of peace. It can do no other, for this is
the purpose of its being.” LINK
The final paragraph of World Freemasonry
by John Hamill and R A Gilbert, reputedly internationally
regarded as authorities on Freemasonry.
the Quotes on Masons and Masonry
1. Hitherto, the only statement
about Freemasonry with which tribunals such as the
Public Petitions Committee (PPC), the Justice Committees,
the Scottish Executive and the judiciary consistently
concur is the type of flippant reference to Freemasonry
as applied by Napoleon Bonaparte (see Section 2, item
More heed should be paid to the other quotes.
2. One has only to look
at the solemn oath a person takes when he is initiated
into the First Degree or Entered Apprentice stage
of Masonry (see Section 2, item 3 above), to get some
kind of idea about the perplexing mysteries that transpire
in life and provide no logical answers. LINK
Masonic activists themselves, some generally well-intentioned,
are sometimes forced to make irritable and remorseful
decisions when confronted with members of the “Craft”
pulling rank on them by playing the “oath card”.
This will always ensure their compliance. I am sure
the Committee would be disburdening many well-disposed
Masons from certain misplaced obligations and allegiances
by accepting the supplications defined by the Petitioner.
(See also items
11 and 18
at Section 2 above for other examples of Masonic oaths).
3. The Committee will note
that the above quotes are not taken from a one-sided,
narrow point of view, but from the observations and
experiences of a diverse range of people, including
several Masons. I would hope that this important
point is not missed when making your deliberations.
4. I intentionally left
the final paragraph of Messrs Hamill and Gilbert's
book, World Freemasonry, which was complimentary
towards Freemasonry, to the end (item 20 of Section
2 above) to allow you to balance these authors’
quote on Masonry with all the other quotes. LINK
I left my own referral to that final quote until the
end of my submissions at Section 9, “Conclusions”,
because I believe the aforementioned authors’
convictions lend significant support to this Petition.
Reference to Lord Cullen's 100-year Closure Order
1. It was brought to my
notice by a number of people, including sections of
the press, that Lord Cullen put a 100-year closure
order on documents in relation to his pseudo-inquiry
into the Dunblane massacre. It was claimed that
this embargo was put in place to protect the names
of children who suffered sexual abuse from Thomas
Hamilton and others. Why then was my five letters
to him - which I sent to the Inquiry between 11 April
and 16 August 1996 inclusive - put on closure for
100 years when not one of them mentioned one, single,
solitary name of a child who was abused? LINK
Irrespective of the closure order, I have included
in this Petition my “embargoed” correspondence
with the Cullen Inquiry, which proves the Inquiry
was a sham beyond refute.
2. The reference number
by the National Archives of Scotland has my correspondence
at COM21/4/105/1-2; that is, number 105 of the 106
files put on the closure list. The National
Archives of Scotland claims copyright of my correspondence,
but only the writer of a letter can claim copyright;
which is why I have provided the Committee with copies
of all my correspondence with the Cullen Inquiry.
3. What is more, there is
no statutory basis for the closure of records created
by Scottish public bodies, as freely admitted by the
Crown Office (see addenda). The Public Records
(Scotland) Act 1937 (the 1937 Act) makes provision
for the preservation, care and custody of the public
records of Scotland. The terms of the legislation
are permissive! On that account, on what authority
was the 100-year ban imposed when the closure order
is clearly an impediment to the public interest?
Can we next expect the abolition of the printing press,
the destruction of books, the closure of schools (other
than those preyed upon by paedophiliac “citizens-above-suspicion”),
the enthronement of ignorance, and the violation of
4. Hansard states that Cullen
imposed the closure and it looks like the Lord Advocate
is trying to make out that it was a host of bodies
responsible, and that Cullen merely approved the closure,
allowing him to distance himself from what was a public
outrage in which he was centrally involved. LINK
It also stated that, in certain circumstances, this
[the closure order] could be waived for those “showing
a ‘legitimate’ interest” (my emphasis).
That particular statement could mean anything, or
nothing, according to the vagaries of those with a
vested interest in, and excel at, bending the rules
and executing whitewashes. This whole charade
must be exposed. Since there is no statutory
basis for the closure of records created by Scottish
public bodies, the files should be where they belong:
in the public domain!
5. On learning of the “gagging order”
put on 106 files, particularly my own at COM21/4/105/1-2, I wrote to
Lord Cullen on 27 February 2003 to express my disgust. I also
called for his resignation from the judiciary. LINK
A sinister phenomenon then transpired when my name and address
were mysteriously erased from File COM21/4/105/1-2, for which a well-known
Sunday Times journalist referred to as “admittedly a bizarre situation”.
The two contrasting descriptions of the Official Scottish Records Index
to the 106 embargoed documents held in secret for 100-years by the National
Archives of Scotland, lists File COM21/4/105/1-2 as follows, with the
earlier one first:
1996 Apr-Jul Additional
Correspondence between Clerk to the Inquiry
and William Burns, South Queensferry, West
Lothian, regarding possible affiliations
of Thomas Hamilton with Freemasonry, and
relevant extracts from Inquiry transcript,
and copy letters from Thomas Hamilton (R77)
Apr-Jul Additional Productions
Correspondence regarding possible affiliations
of Thomas Hamilton with Freemasonry, and relevant
extracts from Inquiry transcript, and copy
letters from Thomas Hamilton (R77)
6. So the attempt
to rewrite the history of the Dunblane Inquiry
began. The fact that I wrote 4 of my 5
letters to Lord Cullen (by name) and not to
the clerk, as stated in the first edition of
the Index, it seems that the true description
of the content of my letters was meant to be
lost to researchers. Even my name was
airbrushed from the Index of the Dunblane Inquiry.
7. After writing to
the Lord Advocate to express my concerns (two
letters, one reply - copies appended)
and to the National Archives of Scotland (two
letters, two replies - copies appended), I was
reassured that the description of COM21/4/105/1-2
had been rectified to the more accurate form
Apr-Jul Additional Productions
Correspondence between William Burns, South Queensferry, and Lord
Cullen and the Clerk to the Inquiry concerning possible connections
with Freemasonry of Thomas Hamilton, Lord Cullen himself, witnesses
to the Inquiry and civil servants; also extracts from inquiry transcript
relating to possible links with Freemasonry, and letters to and
from Thomas Hamilton concerning running of boys clubs, rebuttals
of allegations made against him and his claims against Central Regional
Council and Central Scotland Police (R77)
However, for fear of the editors (or censors) of the 100-year
embargoed documents altering the content of my letters, I have included
copies of them in the addenda, as mentioned hereinbefore.
8. The fact that I wrote to the Inquiry and
Lord Cullen to ascertain the Masonic membership of Cullen and asked
that all witnesses to the Inquiry declare their Masonic status or otherwise,
evidently prompted an attempt to make me a victim of the censor’s
red pencil as my reasonable requests to Lord Cullen at that all-important
time were never answered by him. LINK
This casts doubt on the integrity of the Inquiry. So to does
the fact that those reasonable requests were disguised and an illegal
attempt was made to bury them for 100 years. It has to be asked
if the 4 files that have been released to the public to date, were similarly
subjected to injudicious editing!
9. As mentioned hereinbefore, my own correspondence
with the Cullen Inquiry related strictly to the Masonic involvement
in the whitewash. Masons covering up for fellow Masons who
were responsible for creating all the loopholes that allowed a crazed
paedophile to organise with impunity over many years, for himself and
others, sordid practices on children at Dunblane Primary School and
Queen Victoria Boarding School. Thomas Hamilton was given this
protection because he paved the way for many other high profile “citizens-above-suspicion”
who were similarly acutely involved in the child abuse scandal.
It was precisely to protect those “citizens-above-suspicion”
that made Hamilton’s protection so essential. LINK
10. By committing suicide after he killed
the 16 schoolchildren and their teacher, Hamilton must have assumed
that all the dirty linen would come out in the wash after his death.
Even he could not have foreseen the enormity of the subsequent whitewash,
whereby he alone was deemed an isolated madman in the entire wretched
affair. What was ignored was that a catalogue of loopholes, escapes,
reprieves, safety valves, secret passages, drawbridges, flags of convenience,
inlets, outlets, get-ins, get-outs, etc., were provided for him by clandestine
characters to protect him, and, infinitely more importantly, to protect
themselves. As a result, a highly suspect inquiry was launched
and legitimised by the legal process itself.
11. If Hamilton was dominated by more potent
forces, it is incumbent on any inquiry to identify them. For the
Chairman of a tribunal to be mistaken is a misfortune to be pitied;
but to know the truth and not conform his actions to it, is a crime
that Heaven and Earth condemn. The victims of the massacre, the
victims of child abuse and their relatives and friends, and ultimately
the Scottish people, have all been excluded from the fundamental rights
of citizenship as a result of the pseudo-inquiry.
12. Furthermore, as a member of the Speculative
Society of Edinburgh, Lord Cullen should have recused himself on the
basis of potential or actual bias, prior to the start of the Inquiry. LINK
He was invited to do so, as my first letter to the Clerk to the Inquiry
reveals (see item 6 at Section 5 below LINK).
He refused to do so and ended up digging a deeper and deeper hole for
himself as the Inquiry retrograded.
1. The Cullen Inquiry into the shootings at
Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996 was carried out under the terms
of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. In his opening
statement, Lord Cullen commented, “I would emphasise that this
is to be an Inquiry held in public. As matters stand, I do not
foresee that I would require to exercise my power to direct that any
part of it should be held in private.” Obviously, at some
point during the gathering of evidence, he decided that certain aspects
of the inquiry could not be heard in public; hence the 100-year “Gagging
2. However, accountability lies at the heart
of the role of a tribunal appointed under the 1921 Act. On the
rare occasion when a matter of grave public concern needs to be investigated
thoroughly and to the full satisfaction of the public, a tribunal is
appointed under the terms of the above Act. There can be no doubt
that the events of 13 March 1996 constituted one of these very rare
occasions yet Lord Cullen’s Inquiry failed to generate public
confidence. In fact, it actually served to reinforce the
perception of the general public that there was something extremely
3. For example, Central Scotland Police were
given the crucial role of investigating the background to the massacre,
yet they themselves were heavily implicated.
4. When Hamilton’s Masonic affiliation
was reported in the press, LINK
it fuelled speculation that a lot more people than Hamilton were implicated
and that the subsequent public inquiry would be a Masonic whitewash.
5. During the Inquiry, Lord Cullen had greater
difficulty avoiding the very essence of the sordid matters at hand than
he would had he actually addressed them. Given that Cullen alone
decided which witnesses were to be questioned, the questions that were
allowed or disallowed, and the intensity of the interrogation of those
and of such as those, he must take full responsibility for the cover-up.
His 100-year "Gagging Order" illustrates his guilt beyond any shadow
of a doubt. I wrote to him telling him as much in my letter to
him of 27 February 2003 (appended). LINK
6. As a member of the
secretive, exclusive and highly suspect "Speculative Society", I assume
Lord Cullen is fully aware that, at one time, Freemasonry was comprised
entirely of "Operative Masons". During the Middle
Ages, these Masons were builders in the literal sense. This was modified
to accept "Speculative Masons" after the Reformation, supposedly
due to the lack of "Operative Masons”, but more likely because
powerful people realised how influential Freemasonry had become, and
how beneficial it would be to take control of such a potent clandestine
society. In 1764, more than 200 years later, Speculative
Masonry became even more exclusive when the "Speculative Society"
grew from it. Lord (William Douglas) Cullen appears in the Speculative
Society of Edinburgh's Roll of Extraordinary Members at number 1702.
7. I wrote to the Cullen Inquiry on
the 11 April 1996, prior to its commencement, with the following comments
(which is also included in my appended, “gagged” productions):
- "With reference to the 'Notice of Preliminary Hearing' about
the 'Dunblane Public Hearing', published in The Scotsman on Wednesday,
10 April 1996, it is in the public interest that Lord Cullen be
asked if he is a Freemason, given the widely held view by the public
that Thomas Hamilton’s Masonic affiliation was probably the
reason that the Ombudsman overturned an earlier decision by Central
Regional Council in 1983 to prevent Hamilton from running youth
clubs, and that his Masonic affiliation probably facilitated his
application for a gun licence. LINK
- “If Lord Cullen is in fact a Freemason, or anyone else
involved in the Inquiry for that matter, it must be insisted that
they resign forthwith from the Inquiry because it is far too important
to allow the Masonic implication to be whitewashed by furtive operatives
in the Freemasons, intent only in 'diverting the discourse' - a
Masonic ruse - from the involvement of Freemasons and Freemasonry.
- "PS Please consider this letter a formal invitation to Lord Cullen
to announce his membership or non-membership of Freemasonry."
8. I received a phone call from the Clerk
to the Cullen Inquiry, Glynis McKeand, at 9.45am on Thursday, 18 April
1996, in which she said she approached Lord Cullen with my letter and
that he declared he was not, and never had been a Freemason.
9. To my everlasting regret, I accepted this as the truth
at the time without probing further because I believed that Masons are
not supposed to deny their membership when asked directly.
I should have been aware that they have ready-made answers to “divert
a discourse” when questions are phrased in certain ways.
Apparently, for example, they can regard themselves as "Masons" as opposed
to Freemasons and therefore can deny they are "Free" Masons. I
can see the ruse here because how can anyone consider himself "Free",
having taken the bloodcurdling oath of the First Degree, or Entered
Apprentice, of Masonry. LINK
Another ruse is to get someone else to lie for you. To which end
I asked him again in unequivocal language in that letter of 27 February
2003, which gives him no way of equivocating. I also expressed
that I expected an answer from him personally. The questions were:
- (a) Did you ever take the oath of entered apprentice at 1st
degree for the purpose of entering into Masonic association?;
- (b) Were you obliged by any expectation of loyalty that had
the potential to produce an unbalanced judgement in a tribunal such
as the Cullen Inquiry?
10. I insisted on a straightforward answer
to a straightforward question, asking him to try to display a modicum
of integrity for the first time in this ongoing saga. Not surprisingly,
I still await a reply. Who knows: he might well have taken refuge
in one of the citadels of silence? Who knows?
11. The fact he has since taken refuge in
the House of Lords probably answers the question!
12. During the inquiry,
Lord Cullen picked and chose the witnesses to be called to give testimony.
In his opening statement he admitted: “Since this is an investigation
I will have the ultimate say as to whether or not a person should be
called to give evidence”.
13. Of these witnesses, there was an arbitrary
system of cross-examination. Some witnesses were exposed to rigorous
questioning, whilst others breezed in and out of the witness box with
very few questions asked. Cullen stated himself that he would decide
the extent to which witnesses should be questioned. Far too many
potentially crucial questions were not asked. Which begs the question:
“Why were Hamilton's friends and associates given such an easy
14. In his final analogy, Lord Cullen sifted
the evidence heard or presented to the Inquiry and eliminated whatever
evidence did not fit the picture he wished to portray, that of the "lone
madman" seeking revenge on Dunblane. In his opening statement
Lord Cullen admitted: "The criterion which I will apply is whether what
is proposed is likely to be of assistance in achieving the objects of
this Inquiry." But what exactly were the objects of the Inquiry,
other than covering up all the high-profile, perverted "citizens-above-suspicion"
in our society and burying files for 100 years that would implicate
them, and Lord Cullen himself, in the high-level Masonic cover-up?
15. It is patently deceitful that in 1996, we were
led to believe that Thomas Hamilton did not actually abuse children
(or there was no definite proof of that), but in 2003, we are asked
to believe the opposite, that Hamilton did abuse children and that their
identities must now be protected. The Cullen Report states: "The
only evidence that the Inquiry heard as to any acts of indecency on
the part of Thomas Hamilton comprised two incidents." (page 25, paragraph
4.15). Why then was there a 100-year "Gagging Order" on 106 files?
Lord Cullen can't eat his cake and have it. Two incidents do not
warrant an attempt to put 106 files on a closure order - an illicit
closure order at that. An attempt to put 106 files on a closure
order suggests a cover-up of immeasurable proportions. I know
for a fact that essential questions were avoided at the Inquiry, and
my letters to Lord Cullen at that time, in relation to the essential
questions, were contumeliously responded to, as the Committee will ascertain
after having read them (see addenda).
16. This was a public inquiry yet the witnesses
and the public were systematically manipulated, controlled, directed
and misinformed, and the media coverage was restricted to achieve the
propagandistic support for the whitewash. The Scottish people
and their democratic institutions were deprived of information essential
to sound judgement.
A New Public Inquiry
1. Had a public register for people who are
members of organisations like Freemasonry, the Speculative Society etc.,
been placed before the Cullen Inquiry before it commenced, it could
not have been conducted in the stage-managed manner it most certainly
was. For example, the public would have known Lord Cullen's status
in such societies, as they would have with other members of the tribunal,
and with all the people who testified, including police officers and
others who created loopholes for Thomas Hamilton. A proper, judicious,
impartial inquiry would have ensued.
2. There are too many discrepancies that nothing
short of a brand new investigation and inquiry will suffice, with no
stones left unturned. One thing is for sure; Lord Cullen will
not be allowed to put a 100-year "Gagging Order" on my correspondence
with his pseudo-inquiry. It is already in the public domain and
there it will remain. Some things are more important than even
the Petitioner's own safety and well-being, which he is aware could
well be jeopardised as a result of lodging this Petition but that pales
by comparison with the aims of what is trying to be achieved here.
3. Thomas Hamilton's "friends" have been protected
from investigation for the past seven years. It is time they faced
full scrutiny. A new inquiry should therefore be initiated
into the events during the years leading up to the massacre at Dunblane
Primary School and the abuse of children at both that school and Queen
Victoria School. Some of them were not called to the original
inquiry. Some of them gave statements and were not called.
Others have never been asked to give statements. Included in this
group are all the boys who attended Hamilton's summer camps, in particular
the Loch Lomond camp in 1988. Since these boys are now adults,
it should be their choice whether they wish to give evidence or not.
Most of these boys were adults even at the time of Lord Cullen's Inquiry
in 1996 and could have decided for themselves whether they wished to
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
1. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Advocate,
the former Scottish Office Minister and presently an MSP, was a member
of the Justice 1 and 2 Committees before the Scottish Parliament entered
the dissolution period. He might well be involved to some degree
in the decision-making with this Petition. Like Lord Cullen, he
is a member of the secretive, exclusive and highly-suspect "Speculative
Society", which has its origins in Masonry. LINK
It is absolutely imperative that no "Spec" members or people
who have ever taken the oath of entered apprentice at 1st degree LINK
for the purpose of entering into Masonic association, or who are obliged
by any expectation of loyalty to extraneous organisations that have
the potential to produce an unbalanced judgement in Petitions such as
this one, should be allowed to influence the decision-making of it.
2. If a Mason comes forth to influence this
Committee and render judgement on this Petition he must be distrusted
as a hypocrite with some secret and ulterior purpose, and his quiet,
honest conduct must be branded as mere strategy.
3. In The Scotsman on 12 November 1996, it
was reported that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said in a written Commons
document reply that there had not been enough evidence to prosecute
Thomas Hamilton for acts of indecency from his time as a boys' club
leader. He said: "There was in fact very little evidence of any
acts of indecency on the part of Hamilton. So far as can be established
no incident amounting to sexual interference with male children was
reported to the police while Hamilton was alive." LINK
4. Coming from an advocate, this is scandalous.
Lord James went on to say that the criminal authorities had not been
in possession of evidence that would have justified a prosecution against
Thomas Hamilton for sexual interference while he was alive. We
now know the opposite is true; that there was much evidence suppressed
to prevent charges being preferred against not only Thomas Hamilton,
but also against a number of other people.
5. In answer to another question, Lord James
said that the actions of the police in reporting cases to the Procurator
Fiscal were examined by Lord Cullen (Lord James' "Brother" in the "Spec"
who concluded that there was no evidence of any criminal act on (another
"Brother") the Masonic Thomas Hamilton's part before the tragedy.
This flies in the face of the truth and is a blatant act of "supporting
a brother's character in his absence as in his presence", the fifth
of the "Five Points of Fellowship", the strongest oath of Masonic brotherhood.
6. Lord James also said: "In the light of
Lord Cullen's findings the Secretary of State sees no need for further
investigation into the actions of the police in making reports to the
Procurator Fiscal, and the Lord Advocate considers that further investigation
of the actions of the Procurators Fiscal is unnecessary."
7. This stinks to the high heavens of a cover-up
so everyone must now be made accountable. Every member of the
Committee - apart from being accountable - must stand up and be counted!
In the terms of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1988, a public authority
can be responsible for the acts of people who work for them even if
they do not know or approve of what people are doing on its behalf.
The judiciary works on behalf of the Scottish Parliament.
Police call for Disclosure of Masonic Association
1. On 12 December 1996, The Scotsman carried an
article: "Police press for investigation on Masonic links."
It stated: "Rank and file officers from the Grampian board of the Scottish
Police Federation, it was reported, called for an investigation into
the strength of the links between Freemasonry and the police.
The demand for an inquiry into police membership of the Masons and other
secret societies came amid growing concerns about the influence of 'the
Brotherhood' in some forces and talk of a possible connection between
the Freemasons and the Dunblane murderer, Thomas Hamilton. LINK
2. Police Officers are not allowed to take
an active part in politics or to have separate business interests, yet
they are allowed to join the Masons, to whom they take a stronger oath
of allegiance, without even having to declare they have taken that oath
of allegiance at the 1st degree, or Entered Apprentice, stage of Masonry.
3. There is only one logical reason for people
trying to conceal their membership of lodges like the Masons and the
Speculative Society and that reason can only be to screen the dubious,
suspect or criminal activities of both themselves and their misguided
"Brothers". At least that is the only way the public could perceive
1. At the end of April 2001,
the then Scottish Executive Justice Minister, Jim Wallace, made a long-overdue
proposal that the exemption of Scots judges and sheriffs from being
disciplined for "performance" and "behaviour" discrepancies was set
to be removed because under the present system only two sheriffs have
been dismissed in 30 years, while a Court of Session judge has never
been removed from office. Sadly, the Scottish public is still
waiting impatiently for this to be implemented.
2. Surely, and particularly in the light of
the Cullen Inquiry fiasco, all members of the legal profession, including
the police, ought to have a code of conduct, which would include a requirement
to declare their membership of Masonic lodges and its offshoot organisations
such as the Speculative Society. The Scottish Police Federation
has itself called for "an investigation into the strength of the links
between Freemasonry and the police"; and the Association of Chief Police
Officers south of the border wants the Home Office to bring in legislation
to make it compulsory for officers to register their membership of organisations
like Freemasonry. In fact, everyone seems to be in favour of making
"darkness visible" so the Committee should find no difficulty in following
3. If Masons
and Masonry truly adhere to such virtues as defined in that final paragraph
of World Freemasonry by Messrs Hamill and Gilbert - and referred
to in Section 2, item 20 above - they will "face their opponents [and
everyone else] with no weapons other than honesty and truth …
for it knows that it is guilty of no crime and of no sin ... [and] it
will advance as it has always done the cause of justice and peace ...
for this is the purpose of its being", they can have no qualms whatsoever
about revealing to the public their "proud" membership of Masonry and/or
its offshoots. LINK
4. By the same token, the Committee should
have no qualms about accepting this Petition, which calls for, inter
alia, members of the judiciary to reveal their membership of such organisations
to the public.
5. Since Masonry itself lays claim to the
above mentioned virtues, it follows that the openness supplicated in
this Petition will be welcomed by both Masonry and the general public,
therefore the Committee could not justify rejecting the terms of this
Petition without themselves portraying a sinister interest in clandestine
groups and organisations. A rejection of this Petition would undoubtedly
impoverish the standing of the Committee in the eyes of the public.
6. To lend weight to this
argument, the Petitioner refers to BBC News Online: UK: Scotland on
Friday, 1 February 2002, 22:00 GMT, website: which reported: "Finally,
the SNP's Tricia Marwick used a meeting of the standards committee to
tilt at the freemasons. 'Members of parliament', she said, 'should
reveal if they are members of this secret society.' On Friday,
this brought a series of revelations from the Tory benches, starting
with Keith Harding and followed more reluctantly by Phil Gallie, Jamie
McGrigor and Brian Monteith.  But then the Secretary of the Grand
Lodge of Scotland Martin McGibbon said it was okay to be open about
7. If the harmony of prominent and venerated
Masons is unmistakable in declaring that it is okay for Masons to reveal
their membership, one can only be suspicious of the doubtful honesty
and motives of those who reject these sentiments.
8. By the same token, if the Committee merely
structures guidelines that only advise members of the judiciary to declare
their amity with organisations like Freemasonry, it will not appease
the public. To avoid this, I would suggest that legislation is
enacted in statute to "enforce" the judiciary (and other public servants)
to register their affiliations and interests in such organisations.
9. "Freemasonry," remember, according to Messrs
Hamill and Gilbert, "has no need of secrecy [and] its members are proud
to be Freemasons and have no desire to hide the fact of their membership
from the world at large." LINK
Let us hope that the Committee does not have some arcane desire for
proud Masonic members of the judiciary to hide the fact of their membership
from the world at large!
10. Trusting societies cannot be built on
foundations of secrecy.
11. Equally, public inquiries, like the Cullen
Inquiry, cannot be conducted under clouds of secrecy.
The Petitioner, therefore, requests that the Scottish
(i) opens up to the public the Petitioner's
embargoed correspondence with the Cullen Inquiry, filed at COM21/4/105/1-2
by the National Archives of Scotland;
(ii) opens up to the public other documents
embargoed under the same order, those that do not reveal the names of
any children who were victims of abuse;
(iii) opens up to the public documents embargoed
under the same order, those that do reveal names of any children who
were victims of abuse, if these children, most of whom are adults now,
consent to their names being revealed;
(iv) enacts legislation to enforce members
of the judiciary, the legal profession in general, other public bodies
and elected politicians, including councillors, to register any association
they might have with organisations, such as Freemasonry, the Speculative
(v) holds an entirely new public inquiry into
the relevant events that went before the Dunblane massacre, the ensuing
Cullen Inquiry, the perceived cover-up, and into the false reasons given
for the 100-year closure order when the majority of the files held by
the National Archives of Scotland did not reveal the names of any abused
(vi) removes the exemption
of Scots judges and sheriffs from being disciplined for "performance"
and "behaviour" discrepancies, as proposed at the end of April 2001
by the then Scottish Justice Minister Jim Wallace.
I, the Petitioner, have already approached Lord Cullen
by letter (copy appended), but did not receive a reply, and do not expect
to receive one, due to the embarrassing, sensitive and controversial
nature of the material involved. Since I sent him that letter,
his Lord Presidency has been shelved and he is now taking refuge in
the House of Lords. LINK
18 Shore Road
Scotland EH30 9SG